Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Debt is more than double what it was in 2010 so if we were bancrupt then what are we now?
This is mixing up income and capital. The main problem in 2010 was that we had a public sector that required a far larger tax base than we had after the GFC so it was necessary, over time, to bring them back into alignment. We had just about managed that by 2019 only to get hit again with both Covid and then fuel subsidies. The result, at the moment, is what Hunt refers to as "eyewatering" levels of borrowing, just to pay ourselves what we think we are entitled to.
The difference in debt is the accumulation of borrowing that we accumulated whilst realigning income and expenditure. There was no alternative to that which would not have brought the economy to a grinding halt. The result, however, is that our freedom of manoeuvrer is more limited, as Truss vividly demonstrated. The forthcoming Labour government is going to face exactly the same problems as she did. Its going to disappoint a lot of people.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Surely Cherie Blair was/is a lawyer so obviously she would be involved with "dodgy" people, that's her Job. I don't know what Starmer's Wife's job is but I'm sure it's not on a par with grifting on her husband's policies a la Sunak.
LOL. Apparently Victoria Starmer was also a solicitor. And that's a really, really poor defence of what happened with Cherie Blair.
"... grifting on her husband's policies"
Don't you see that this rather reinforces my point?
Are you saying that Mrs Starmer benefited from her husband's policies?
I think, in fact, I hope, Starmer is playing his cards close to his chest. After all, he’s a prosecution, lawyer, and lawyers don’t like disclosing all their case to the other side. I do hope though that when he actually discloses his cards, he’ll be a bit more radical than he’s been up to date.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
Boris and I share something in common, we both had school reports from Martin Hammond. Hammond was my old headmaster and took me for Latin for a brief period and wrote the end of my final report as head man
I am sure Hammond's analysis of HYUFD was substantially more positive than his exposé of Johnson.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
Boris and I share something in common, we both had school reports from Martin Hammond. Hammond was my old headmaster and took me for Latin for a brief period and wrote the end of my final report as head man
I am sure Hammond's analysis of HYUFD was substantially more positive than his exposé of Johnson.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
I don't think that Johnson reacted to events badly.
What did for him was his complete veniality. Not only did he think that he was beyond good and evil, he acted as if his sycophants were beyond good and evil.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Sunak therefore also worked for someone unfit for office.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
They said that about Murrell for years
And evidence was produced and consequences followed.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Indeed who can remember donkeygate? The Mail has clearly sought hard but found nought to slur Starmer with.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
I don't think that Johnson reacted to events badly.
What did for him was his complete veniality. Not only did he think that he was beyond good and evil, he acted as if his sycophants were beyond good and evil.
His reactions were slow and leaden-footed.
The other problem he has is that he's extraordinarily lazy; he does things at the very last minute and even then only to the smallest extent he has to, and then tries to wriggle out of any criticism.
Re Blair and Demon Eyes .. you could argue it was truthful given the way we were forced into an illegal war. So much for bring a Roman Catholic now and meeting the Pope. He will have another meeting later where he will have to answer for what he did.
I saw this interesting read on the parallels between the Iraq and Ukraine wars this morning:
As Churchill said, trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing yourself in a bucket and trying to lift it up by the handles.
We need growth. We need strategy. And the pay-off for those policies might only be 15-20 years down the line.
Are there any governments brave enough to put in the whole nine yards on this?
Growth comes from investment.
Investment comes from profits. But profits are bad, apparently. How does, to take an obvious example, these multiple promises of windfall taxes help investment, exactly? Even the government's watered down version has had very negative effects on north sea investment.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Why? "We are so insanely rich and greedy for more we can't be bothered to check which government handouts we might be benefiting from" isn't a good defence for a prime minister.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
The PB faithful are becoming more febrile the closer we get to a tight General Election. They will be off the scale bonkers by the six week run up, of that I have no doubt.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Probably a good thing to work longer if healthy enough to do so, for both economy and individual.
So much for the ‘great retire’ then.
Hopefully with workers working longer age discrimination in the workplace and by employers will be clamped down on.
Horrible feeling that there's another Two Nations effect here. Those who can retire very comfortably in their fifties, and those who will never be able to afford to retire. (And a small third nation of people with really enjoyable jobs who probably ought to let the generation below them have a turn.)
And without a time machine or really unpopular tax changes, there's not a lot that can be done.
I think, in fact, I hope, Starmer is playing his cards close to his chest. After all, he’s a prosecution, lawyer, and lawyers don’t like disclosing all their case to the other side. I do hope though that when he actually discloses his cards, he’ll be a bit more radical than he’s been up to date.
This is not, in fact, true. Prosecution lawyers have wide ranging and serious obligations of full disclosure to the defence. Politicians, on the other hand,... not so much!
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
I don't think that Johnson reacted to events badly.
What did for him was his complete veniality. Not only did he think that he was beyond good and evil, he acted as if his sycophants were beyond good and evil.
Johnson reacted to events in a way that the outcome would appear optimal for him, nothing else mattered. Sometimes it worked out, like the immunisation programme, and sometimes it didn't, like Brexit.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
Ask the Iraqis if the demon eyes stage was inappropriate....
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
Much like Sunak then who worked for Johnson . Anyone who was in his cabinet helped support a pathological liar .
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
So what made Sunak work for someone unfit for office? Indeed on repeat occasions?
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
By the same token, just about all of the current cabinet are unfit for office, having worked for Johnson.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
Ask the Iraqis if the demon eyes stage was inappropriate....
Jonathan seems to think Labour leaders should get a free pass when seeking office, and given the benefit of the doubt. He seems strangely obsessed by them being criticised.
Re Blair and Demon Eyes .. you could argue it was truthful given the way we were forced into an illegal war. So much for bring a Roman Catholic now and meeting the Pope. He will have another meeting later where he will have to answer for what he did.
I saw this interesting read on the parallels between the Iraq and Ukraine wars this morning:
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
So what made Sunak work for someone unfit for office? Indeed on repeat occasions?
There seems to one standard set for Sunak and another for Starmer in here by Tory supporters .
Probably a good thing to work longer if healthy enough to do so, for both economy and individual.
So much for the ‘great retire’ then.
Hopefully with workers working longer age discrimination in the workplace and by employers will be clamped down on.
Horrible feeling that there's another Two Nations effect here. Those who can retire very comfortably in their fifties, and those who will never be able to afford to retire. (And a small third nation of people with really enjoyable jobs who probably ought to let the generation below them have a turn.)
And without a time machine or really unpopular tax changes, there's not a lot that can be done.
I think so too. I could retire comfortably tomorrow if I wanted, but plan to carry on for probably another decade or so. I enjoy my job and get good results, and also have an ancestral Presbyterian dislike of voluntary idleness.
People working on in appropriately light occupations is economically beneficial in addressing both labour shortages and also dependency ratio's.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Starmer's not the Prime Minister (yet). When did Peter Foster take any handouts from the government?
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
I wish my wife WAS a wealthy woman. I have no problems with wealthy per se. As long as they pay their taxes, fairly and their companies don't suddenly find tax breaks occurring by virtue of being married to the person manufacturing the tax breaks.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
So what made Sunak work for someone unfit for office? Indeed on repeat occasions?
Actually, it's worse than that.
Starmer being in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet is a negative, no question. But it's also recognising an unfortunate reality that Jezza was twice elected Labour leader. Will of the people, so to speak. I don't think there's any evidence for Starmer backing Jez in the leadership elections.
Whereas Sunak boarded the Boris Bus long before he was inevitable. He could have backed someone else, but chose not to. That's much more culpable.
(This depends also on which of the two terrible choices we had in 2019 you think was worse. Plenty of people thought there was not much in it. You need a fair bit of one of the varieties of BDS to think either one was good.)
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
And Thatcher left the next generation homeless. A wonderful woman.
That's a ridiculous comment if you compare the position of young people after she left office with their position now.
What screwed up the intergenerational settlement was mass immigration and ignoring asset price inflation in setting monetary policy.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
Ask the Iraqis if the demon eyes stage was inappropriate....
Jonathan seems to think Labour leaders should get a free pass when seeking office, and given the benefit of the doubt. He seems strangely obsessed by them being criticised.
I wonder why.
I am highly critical of Starmer, and won't be voting for his party, but I think that his personal integrity is far stronger than other politicians in either Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet.
The absence of policy to address the compounding anti-growth outcomes of Brexit or the poor state of government finances or public services or intergenerational inequalities are what puts me off.
As Churchill said, trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing yourself in a bucket and trying to lift it up by the handles.
We need growth. We need strategy. And the pay-off for those policies might only be 15-20 years down the line.
Are there any governments brave enough to put in the whole nine yards on this?
Growth comes from investment.
Investment comes from profits. But profits are bad, apparently. How does, to take an obvious example, these multiple promises of windfall taxes help investment, exactly? Even the government's watered down version has had very negative effects on north sea investment.
For 13 years, the Conservatives’ philosophy has been to cut taxes so the rich (people/companies) can spend their money wisely, so they will invest and this will produce growth. And yet growth has been very poor, and investment low.
So let’s try something different. Tax the profits and the government uses the money to invest.
Mr. Romford, consider a Conservative Party led by a man who marched with banners of Hitler, Eichmann, and Heydrich, alongside fluttering swastika flags.
That's why Boris Johnson, for all his many flaws, was clearly the lesser evil. Why the far left gets such a free pass for their fond memories of the genocidal tyranny of Communism in the USSR is utterly baffling.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
The PB faithful are becoming more febrile the closer we get to a tight General Election. They will be off the scale bonkers by the six week run up, of that I have no doubt.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
Ask the Iraqis if the demon eyes stage was inappropriate....
Jonathan seems to think Labour leaders should get a free pass when seeking office, and given the benefit of the doubt. He seems strangely obsessed by them being criticised.
I wonder why.
I am highly critical of Starmer, and won't be voting for his party, but I think that his personal integrity is far stronger than other politicians in either Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet.
The absence of policy to address the compounding anti-growth outcomes of Brexit or the poor state of government finances or public services or intergenerational inequalities are what puts me off.
"but I think that his personal integrity is far stronger than other politicians in either Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet."
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Maybe we just don't like the idea of wealthy women grifting taxpayer money.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
No-one here has ever denied that “spouses of all parties should be open to […] investigation”. Who are you arguing against?
There is a direct accusation of wrongdoing against Sunak and his wife because we have multiple examples of conflicts of interest not being declared.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
No-one here has ever denied that “spouses of all parties should be open to […] investigation”. Who are you arguing against?
There is a direct accusation of wrongdoing against Sunak and his wife because we have multiple examples of conflicts of interest not being declared.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
They said that about Murrell for years
And evidence was produced and consequences followed.
After years and years and only when certain people moved. It was covered up for years and down to the mafia running Scotland with their tame cronies running the public offices etc. Odd thing was why the unionist media hid it all for years.
Mr. Romford, consider a Conservative Party led by a man who marched with banners of Hitler, Eichmann, and Heydrich, alongside fluttering swastika flags.
That's why Boris Johnson, for all his many flaws, was clearly the lesser evil. Why the far left gets such a free pass for their fond memories of the genocidal tyranny of Communism in the USSR is utterly baffling.
Set against a man who tried to close down Parliament in order to get his way. And when that was found unlawful, nobody apologised let alone resigned.
I'm not going to criticise people for which side of the Boris-Jez dilemma the eventually fell. The disgraceful thing is that the big two parties put the voting public in that position.
And Rishi bears a greater responsibility for his part in that than Keir.
Jolyon and the Jewish Chronicle, a heady brew. The idea that antisemitism is uniquely deranged among the phobias is a weird one, a bit deranged in itself I think.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Oh, boo-hoo, how people with lots of money suffer! How can they be expected to keep track of where all their money is?! It’s just not fair. How they must wish they were poor like the rest of us.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
And Thatcher left the next generation homeless. A wonderful woman.
That's a ridiculous comment if you compare the position of young people after she left office with their position now.
What screwed up the intergenerational settlement was mass immigration and ignoring asset price inflation in setting monetary policy.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
And Thatcher left the next generation homeless. A wonderful woman.
That's a ridiculous comment if you compare the position of young people after she left office with their position now.
What screwed up the intergenerational settlement was mass immigration and ignoring asset price inflation in setting monetary policy.
Aah, blame the foreigner s
I don't consider Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to be foreigners.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Sunak therefore also worked for someone unfit for office.
Correct. Also Starmer has addressed the issues of his his former boss while Sunak to my knowledge hasn't said a word against Johnson.
I don't however hold that against Sunak, any more than against Starmer. People are responsible for their own actions in my book.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
By the same token, just about all of the current cabinet are unfit for office, having worked for Johnson.
Can't everyone just agree that by and large, elected politicians are unfit for office, and we should replace elections by sortition as soon as possible?
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Maybe we just don't like the idea of wealthy women grifting taxpayer money.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Oh, boo-hoo, how people with lots of money suffer! How can they be expected to keep track of where all their money is?! It’s just not fair. How they must wish they were poor like the rest of us.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
LOL, no. I see your argument is based on a silly anti-rich position.
But yes, affairs are more complex, especially (as an example) when money and shares are held abroad.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
Ask the Iraqis if the demon eyes stage was inappropriate....
Jonathan seems to think Labour leaders should get a free pass when seeking office, and given the benefit of the doubt. He seems strangely obsessed by them being criticised.
I wonder why.
I am highly critical of Starmer, and won't be voting for his party, but I think that his personal integrity is far stronger than other politicians in either Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet.
The absence of policy to address the compounding anti-growth outcomes of Brexit or the poor state of government finances or public services or intergenerational inequalities are what puts me off.
"but I think that his personal integrity is far stronger than other politicians in either Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet."
Why do you think that?
Because for all the grubbing around of the Tory press they haven't been able to touch him on an issue of integrity.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Nobody made Starmer work for somebody unfit for office. He chose to do that all on his own.
Which made him unfit for office.
By the same token, just about all of the current cabinet are unfit for office, having worked for Johnson.
Can't everyone just agree that by and large, elected politicians are unfit for office, and we should replace elections by sortition as soon as possible?
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Maybe we just don't like the idea of wealthy women grifting taxpayer money.
Why is 'women' relevant? Surely it should be the same for men as well?
And again, 'grifting'. That's a direct accusation of wrong-doing.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Oh, boo-hoo, how people with lots of money suffer! How can they be expected to keep track of where all their money is?! It’s just not fair. How they must wish they were poor like the rest of us.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
LOL, no. I see your argument is based on a silly anti-rich position.
But yes, affairs are more complex, especially (as an example) when money and shares are held abroad.
So your solution is we just let them off, they just shouldn’t need to report conflicts of interest?
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Maybe we just don't like the idea of wealthy women grifting taxpayer money.
Why is 'women' relevant? Surely it should be the same for men as well?
And again, 'grifting'. That's a direct accusation of wrong-doing.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Yeah, I get it. Tories and their families should be smeared and their every affair poured over and used against them. Labour politicians should just get a free pass.
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
Do you think the only reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is because Labour are getting a free pass? Are you really that f***ing naive? We have a robust media in this country. The Mail and the Telegraph would pounce on anything they could.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Down below, someone said about Sunak's wife: ""... grifting on her husband's policies"
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
Maybe we just don't like the idea of wealthy women grifting taxpayer money.
Why is 'women' relevant? Surely it should be the same for men as well?
And again, 'grifting'. That's a direct accusation of wrong-doing.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Oh, boo-hoo, how people with lots of money suffer! How can they be expected to keep track of where all their money is?! It’s just not fair. How they must wish they were poor like the rest of us.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
LOL, no. I see your argument is based on a silly anti-rich position.
But yes, affairs are more complex, especially (as an example) when money and shares are held abroad.
So your solution is we just let them off, they just shouldn’t need to report conflicts of interest?
Not at all. The rules should be applied fairly and equally.
But 'conflicts of interest' can be very much in the eye of the beholder. Say a politician's spouse has a great interest in a charity, and works for it - pick whatever one you want. And then suddenly that charity gets lots of advantages from the politician. Is that a conflict of interest ? What if the spouse just volunteers for that charity? What if it's not a charity, but a 1% share in the company?
The apparent 'decline' of Britain - ie in terms of how it looks - I would say, is to do with local authority budgets. There isn't enough money due to budget cuts so that discretionary services, ie landscaping, public toilets, fixing potholes, parks and gardens just get cut. Even things like enforcement of planning regulations gets cut right back to the point where, in one town of 100,000 people I am familiar with, has 2000 unresolved breaches of planning control that it knows about, and only two inexperienced officers (ie with less than one years experience) dealing with it. Much of this is all just trivial amounts of money that are not being spent with disproportionate consequences that are not immediately obvious. By contrast municipalities in other countries don't let things get so bad even when economic times are objectively far, far worse; because they aren't dealing with the legacy of thatcherism and the harm it did to central/local government relations.
The money is going on social care. In other words, very elderly people.
I don't want to seem callous but we really do need to have a conversation about how much of our national wealth we want to, publicly, spend very expensively on keeping people alive for as long as possible who aren't particularly well and aren't particularly enjoying it.
In other countries, families take them in and look after them - with some visitors/outside help occasionally. I'd argue that's more humane. The trouble is it's also more hassle.
Multi-generational households are fine for very rich people, where granny or grandad can have a self-contained annexe or a barn conversion next to the main house, and where said elder is in reasonable health. Expecting the average family, with Mum and Dad both working full time to make ends meet, noisy kids bouncing off the walls, and already living on top of one another in a rabbit hutch house, to accommodate any older relative - still less one with disabilities and/or dementia - is a complete non-starter. Retirement villages, sheltered housing and residential care homes all exist for good reasons.
The real issue isn't the expenditure of all that cash - not least because, if we make serious efforts to cut and ration it, then how are we going to decide which older people are worth cherishing, and who gets left to starve to death sitting in their own shit or humanely destroyed when they're past it like the family cat? It's who keeps getting taken to the cleaners over and over again for all the extra funding that's the real problem here.
Not really. My wife's family is from Bulgaria, which is a poor country, and everyone does it there, regardless of how little they have.
They consider what we do to be cruel. Like shunting off a 3-year to boarding school, just the other way round.
Granny has dementia and can't be left alone for her own safety. She comes to live with daughter and son-in-law and their two kiddies.
Which half of the couple sacrifices their career and becomes a full-time unpaid career for Granny for the remainder of her lifespan, and how does the other half earn enough money to cover the mortgage and all the bills for the entire household?
It is all pretty feasible: you can bring in carers, work from home etc.
Bollocks is it, my father has dementia, no way I can have him live with me and still work. Simple fact.....he has not filter and even though I work from home he would be constantly peering over my shoulder in every meeting going things like shes a fat cow, walking round in the background in his underpants etc. My choice would be give up work to look after him then how do I pay for food, rent , power etc or put him in a home if he gets much worse.
You make it sound an easy thing which makes me think you have never dealt with someone with dementia
My father died before his time, but was showing early signs of a loss of mental acuity (from a very high base).
But dementia is a classic case of a complex medical condition - there are increasingly specialist care homes that deal with dementia patients (with a different physical layout - eg minimising the number of corners). It is certainly not suitable for home care
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
Oh, boo-hoo, how people with lots of money suffer! How can they be expected to keep track of where all their money is?! It’s just not fair. How they must wish they were poor like the rest of us.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
LOL, no. I see your argument is based on a silly anti-rich position.
But yes, affairs are more complex, especially (as an example) when money and shares are held abroad.
So your solution is we just let them off, they just shouldn’t need to report conflicts of interest?
Not at all. The rules should be applied fairly and equally.
But 'conflicts of interest' can be very much in the eye of the beholder. Say a politician's spouse has a great interest in a charity, and works for it - pick whatever one you want. And then suddenly that charity gets lots of advantages from the politician. Is that a conflict of interest ? What if the spouse just volunteers for that charity? What if it's not a charity, but a 1% share in the company?
My wife volunteers for CAB . If I was a chancellor who gave a specific tax break for CAB only, It'd still be right to declare it.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
Boris and I share something in common, we both had school reports from Martin Hammond. Hammond was my old headmaster and took me for Latin for a brief period and wrote the end of my final report as head man
I am sure Hammond's analysis of HYUFD was substantially more positive than his exposé of Johnson.
I believe it was: "this pupil has some quite bizarre deeply held beliefs, and would do better to cultivate a more cavalier attitude towards life..."
Comments
And the Murrell case is a good example: if more sunlight had been shone on that a while back, it would have been exposed much earlier. And in fact it was known about, or suspected (e.g. the loan), but it didn't gain traction for some odd reason.
The difference in debt is the accumulation of borrowing that we accumulated whilst realigning income and expenditure. There was no alternative to that which would not have brought the economy to a grinding halt. The result, however, is that our freedom of manoeuvrer is more limited, as Truss vividly demonstrated. The forthcoming Labour government is going to face exactly the same problems as she did. Its going to disappoint a lot of people.
I do hope though that when he actually discloses his cards, he’ll be a bit more radical than he’s been up to date.
What did for him was his complete veniality. Not only did he think that he was beyond good and evil, he acted as if his sycophants were beyond good and evil.
The reason the newspapers aren’t full of stories about the Starmers being knee deep in undeclared conflicts of interest is, I suggest, because they’re not.
And Murrell gained plenty of traction. The Scottish press have reported extensively on the matter throughout.
Hopefully with workers working longer age discrimination in the workplace and by employers will be clamped down on.
Though it's likely that the more productive earners will have retired much earlier on still comfortable pensions.
The other problem he has is that he's extraordinarily lazy; he does things at the very last minute and even then only to the smallest extent he has to, and then tries to wriggle out of any criticism.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/5/1/ukraine-war-did-putin-learn-from-bushs-iraq-horrors
Which made him unfit for office.
And without a time machine or really unpopular tax changes, there's not a lot that can be done.
Anyone can 'invest' but getting a positive return is far, far harder.
I wonder why.
People working on in appropriately light occupations is economically beneficial in addressing both labour shortages and also dependency ratio's.
That is a direct accusation of wrong-doing against her - and one of a load of nudge-nudge wink-wink against her. Are you so ****ing naive that you think that that comment was unnoteworthy, yet someone pointing out that the spouses of all parties should be open to such investigation is beyond the pale?
Personally, I'd say that some of the people criticising Sunak's wife just don't like the idea of wealthy women.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
Starmer being in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet is a negative, no question. But it's also recognising an unfortunate reality that Jezza was twice elected Labour leader. Will of the people, so to speak. I don't think there's any evidence for Starmer backing Jez in the leadership elections.
Whereas Sunak boarded the Boris Bus long before he was inevitable. He could have backed someone else, but chose not to. That's much more culpable.
(This depends also on which of the two terrible choices we had in 2019 you think was worse. Plenty of people thought there was not much in it. You need a fair bit of one of the varieties of BDS to think either one was good.)
What screwed up the intergenerational settlement was mass immigration and ignoring asset price inflation in setting monetary policy.
The absence of policy to address the compounding anti-growth outcomes of Brexit or the poor state of government finances or public services or intergenerational inequalities are what puts me off.
So let’s try something different. Tax the profits and the government uses the money to invest.
Mr. Romford, consider a Conservative Party led by a man who marched with banners of Hitler, Eichmann, and Heydrich, alongside fluttering swastika flags.
That's why Boris Johnson, for all his many flaws, was clearly the lesser evil. Why the far left gets such a free pass for their fond memories of the genocidal tyranny of Communism in the USSR is utterly baffling.
Why do you think that?
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
There is a direct accusation of wrongdoing against Sunak and his wife because we have multiple examples of conflicts of interest not being declared.
NEW THREAD
I'm Spartacus....
Odd thing was why the unionist media hid it all for years.
I'm not going to criticise people for which side of the Boris-Jez dilemma the eventually fell. The disgraceful thing is that the big two parties put the voting public in that position.
And Rishi bears a greater responsibility for his part in that than Keir.
The idea that antisemitism is uniquely deranged among the phobias is a weird one, a bit deranged in itself I think.
People with lots of money can afford to pay accountants to help them work out what to declare. They already pay accountants to help them work out how to minimise their tax!
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
I don't however hold that against Sunak, any more than against Starmer. People are responsible for their own actions in my book.
But yes, affairs are more complex, especially (as an example) when money and shares are held abroad.
And again, 'grifting'. That's a direct accusation of wrong-doing.
But 'conflicts of interest' can be very much in the eye of the beholder. Say a politician's spouse has a great interest in a charity, and works for it - pick whatever one you want. And then suddenly that charity gets lots of advantages from the politician. Is that a conflict of interest ? What if the spouse just volunteers for that charity? What if it's not a charity, but a 1% share in the company?
But dementia is a classic case of a complex medical condition - there are increasingly specialist care homes that deal with dementia patients (with a different physical layout - eg minimising the number of corners). It is certainly not suitable for home care