Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
I don't think we are irrationally terrified, just terrified and sadly we know it is possible.
And we also struggle to understand how nearly 50% are willing to vote for Trump and know they can't all be that stupid so don't understand what is going on and have never seen a sensible explanation.
The only criticism I have of Sadiq’s Oxford Street plan is that it should have been done years ago. But, it seems that he will we now be getting new planning powers which make it possible/much faster/easier.
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
The ground in that area is already filled with tunnels, foundations and services. It's an absolute no-goer without many, many billions. It has to be better traffic management on the surrounding streets.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
Given that student fees are static where are they finding the money for a 2.5% pay increase from?
All those lovely overseas student fees that we are tucking into. Its clear now that some institutions will preferentially take an overseas student onto a course over and above a home student of equal academic merit. Also you have recruitment freezes and staff expected to do more.
There's also the point that research funding costs will increase in line with any salary increase. As prevously noted, these don't cover full costs, but the amount applied for in a grant is based on current salaries of staff involved (and known increments etc). So if I'm getting a 2.5% pay rise now, my grant application going in next month will have 2.5% more on salary costs then it would have done.
(My role is >90% research. Teaching-heavy universities will be well and truly screwed as there is indeed no new money to pay for the pay rises.)
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
How would you define 'landslide' ?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
Oh, by winning most if not all the swing states - Ariz, Geo, Mich, Nev, NC, Penn & Wisc. Not Texas. That's fool's gold for punters.
Although Trump can win the election by winning a minority of those states - PA, NC, GA.
As can Harris with PA and two of MI, NC and GA.
Its odd how US and UK elections have changed.
In earlier generations US elections could vary massively over a short period, 1956-1964-1972 most prominently, while UK elections didn't.
Now UK elections can vary massively over a short period while US elections don't.
But as Robert pointed out earlier, it wouldn't take all that much to tip some of the recently reliable red states to the Democrats, and vice versa.
Who is to say that 24-28-32 won't show similar dramatic swings ? (Just for example, you could imagine a Democratic landslide this year; a reformed GOP; an economic crash or similar; a massive swing back.)
56-64-72 saw big forces, both internal (civil rights) and external (Vietnam) puling the country in different directions. The time we're in now is hardly one of peace and world stability...
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
There is 1 slight redeeming feature Chelsea isn't Millwall.
beyond that I think your point is valid...
Edit - on the other hand Millwall fans know their position and role in football
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Valid point - could the last Conservative government have made a settlement for whatever reason? I don't know.
Did they seriously try? I don't know that either.
I was pointing out the weirdness of the use of RPI in the claim very, very early.
However, we are where we are, and they are not setting the agenda any more.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
we also struggle to understand how nearly 50% are willing to vote for Trump and know they can't all be that stupid so don't understand what is going on
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
I don't think I have ever identified one positive about Trump. What I have commented on is the many problems with the democrats and the 'liberal establishment'. To me, the only reason to vote for Trump is that it is the opportunity to 'try something different'. But I have also said clearly that I would not vote for Trump, going so far as to say I would vote for Harris, and have also explained the reasons why. I don't think this stance can in any way be represented as supporting one side. It could either persuade someone to vote for Trump or could otherwise persuade them to vote for Harris.
I don't think my comments would serve any purpose were they to be the work of a professional propogandist. I can only assume that they are striking a nerve with people who also have doubts about 'the dominant narrative'. This is quite the contrast to many other posts on this website which appear to reiterate the dominant narrative on the virtues of Harris and the Democrats, becoming quite abusive at points in the face of challenge/disagreement, and passing through largely unquestioned.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Shouldn't she be able to charge Me+eM for wearing them like any other influencer could? I reckon she'd be talking at least a £1,000,000 by now?
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
Given that student fees are static where are they finding the money for a 2.5% pay increase from?
All those lovely overseas student fees that we are tucking into. Its clear now that some institutions will preferentially take an overseas student onto a course over and above a home student of equal academic merit. Also you have recruitment freezes and staff expected to do more.
Yes. It is obvious that the first job of our universities, including and especially the very finest, at undergraduate level, is to educate the people of the UK. If they don't, whoever is at fault trust will be lost. Top universities at particular times of year (eg clearing) are advertising their availability only to international etc students.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course. The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
In addition to the two railway tunnels that already run under Oxford Street? Had you noticed quite a big one opened a couple years back? How many tunnels does one street need?
They are considerably subsurface.
What I’m taking about cut and cover, New York style.
Yes, various things would need moving. But ultimately it would a permanent solution. Rather than a sticking plaster every few years.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
we also struggle to understand how nearly 50% are willing to vote for Trump and know they can't all be that stupid so don't understand what is going on
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
The ground in that area is already filled with tunnels, foundations and services. It's an absolute no-goer without many, many billions. It has to be better traffic management on the surrounding streets.
Although not all open to cars the problem is that the A40 is a main east-west arterial route through London. If you take it out you have Wigmore Street and that's about it short of the Marylebone Road which would become even more ugly very quickly and it is pretty ugly as it stands.
Look at how they bogged up Park Lane. Just about the only north-south route in that area and now a nightmare esp travelling North.
Not for trusty Boris bikes, obvs, but for buses and cars and motorbikes, for that matter (cf The Embankment which they really did bog up and which is now impassable West to East for most of the day).
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
Given that student fees are static where are they finding the money for a 2.5% pay increase from?
All those lovely overseas student fees that we are tucking into. Its clear now that some institutions will preferentially take an overseas student onto a course over and above a home student of equal academic merit. Also you have recruitment freezes and staff expected to do more.
Yes. It is obvious that the first job of our universities, including and especially the very finest, at undergraduate level, is to educate the people of the UK. If they don't, whoever is at fault trust will be lost. Top universities at particular times of year (eg clearing) are advertising their availability only to international etc students.
This was the case two weeks ago - closed for UK admissions, but open in clearing for rich international students. This will only get worse until the cap on fees is raised.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Since the Conservative government declined to negotiate, the question of how the doctors would have responded is moot. The claim was for 35 per cent and it has quickly been settled at 22 per cent over two years.
But I do not think Rishi was to blame here. Rather, I suspect the no-negotiation tactic was due to Jeremy Hunt who had done the same thing to beat the junior doctors over his new 7-day week contracts.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
What is the offence?
Not declaring the gift.
They have declared it, haven’t they?
Now, yes. But there was a failure to declare. Its not difficult. If you make part of you image about being whiter than white, you'd better be damn sure you are.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
That’s a really interesting bet.
The last few elections there’s been a Dem bias to the popular vote (vs EC delegates), although there’s some polling evidence of a swing away from them in safe states such as NY and CA this time, led by crime and immigration.
In theory it’s 3.1 (68/32) on a 50/50 chance, minus the chance of Trump winning the popular vote and EC delegates (5-10%?).
Could be worth a punt that one, as part of a balanced portfolio of laying whichever candidate is shorter odds this week.
I had a look at that, but it seems a bit too clever to me (for now). And it makes trading and big changes in the odds more complicated.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course. The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
I actually think Merkel was beyond useful idiot for the Russians, I wouldn't be surprised if in some years we discover that she had much deeper ties to Russia and was considered indirectly an asset by Russian intelligence.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
I don't think we are irrationally terrified, just terrified and sadly we know it is possible.
And we also struggle to understand how nearly 50% are willing to vote for Trump and know they can't all be that stupid so don't understand what is going on and have never seen a sensible explanation.
Ok I'll try.
Not all Rep voters are supporters of Trump. They are voting negatively, i.e. against the Dems. Or they vote Rep whoever is the candidate. It's not all about Trump.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
Just don’t let the people who managed the Edinburgh trams project anywhere near it.
It would appear the main issue is Liverpudlians driving large vehicles rather too fast: it’s just riff raff... The area is now inundated with them and they drive around in their 4x4s on these narrow lanes
Perhaps they should introduce a new speed limit in Botwnnog?
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
I don't think I have ever identified one positive about Trump. What I have commented on is the many problems with the democrats and the 'liberal establishment'. To me, the only reason to vote for Trump is that it is the opportunity to 'try something different'. But I have also said clearly that I would not vote for Trump, going so far as to say I would vote for Harris, and have also explained the reasons why. I don't think this stance can in any way be represented as supporting one side. It could either persuade someone to vote for Trump or could otherwise persuade them to vote for Harris.
I don't think my comments would serve any purpose were they to be the work of a professional propogandist. I can only assume that they are striking a nerve with people who also have doubts about 'the dominant narrative'. This is quite the contrast to many other posts on this website which appear to reiterate the dominant narrative on the virtues of Harris and the Democrats, becoming quite abusive at points in the face of challenge/disagreement, and passing through largely unquestioned.
Your opinions often seem pretty odd to me (no doubt I provoke that reaction on occasion, too), but I've never got the impression you're shilling for anyone, FWIW.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
I don't think I have ever identified one positive about Trump. What I have commented on is the many problems with the democrats and the 'liberal establishment'. To me, the only reason to vote for Trump is that it is the opportunity to 'try something different'. But I have also said clearly that I would not vote for Trump, going so far as to say I would vote for Harris, and have also explained the reasons why. I don't think this stance can in any way be represented as supporting one side. It could either persuade someone to vote for Trump or could otherwise persuade them to vote for Harris.
I don't think my comments would serve any purpose were they to be the work of a professional propogandist. I can only assume that they are striking a nerve with people who also have doubts about 'the dominant narrative'. This is quite the contrast to many other posts on this website which appear to reiterate the dominant narrative on the virtues of Harris and the Democrats, becoming quite abusive at points in the face of challenge/disagreement, and passing through largely unquestioned.
I very much hope Trump loses and I think he is dangerous. But I don't think there is much problem is working out why people vote for him in huge numbers (I think he will win). The big ones are: The nature of the other lot, Thomas Hobbes's theory of government (which is much profounder and more true than many realise), and self interest.
There are one or two reasons for feeling hopeful about a Trump regime, despite the immense risks. The major one in international. the USA's allies have no idea what he will do in situation X. He might go and play golf, he might declare that he can walk on water, he might engineer an insurrection, he might go and sexually assault someone.
The good bit is that the USA's enemies don't know either. The other goodish bit is that he knows that there are more votes in peace than there are in war in this particular period of history.
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
How would you define 'landslide' ?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
Oh, by winning most if not all the swing states - Ariz, Geo, Mich, Nev, NC, Penn & Wisc. Not Texas. That's fool's gold for punters.
True @Peter_the_Punter , but in reality I won't actually be happy until she has a 10 point lead in the swing states, is winning in Texas and Florida and Trump is looking worried in North Dakota. And then I will still be nervous.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
Just don’t let the people who managed the Edinburgh trams project anywhere near it.
Somewhat ironically, the best alternative to a tunnel would probably involve running a tramway down the street, having the buses terminate at each end. A pain in the arse if you’ve got a pile of shopping bags though.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
Why should peers have access to Downing St? Do MPs for that matter?
Well he was working on the election. Is there any rule against his having a temporary pass?
How quickly we forget.
"Mr Ecclestone gave Labour £1m only months before the election and was in talks over another £1m. Yet on October 16 he had been to Downing Street to meet Mr Blair and lobby him to exempt formula one racing from a tobacco advertising ban, arguing that as many as 200,000 jobs could be lost."
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
I voted Labour..... because I wanted to see Dame Priti out of Parliament, not because I was particularly enthusiastic about either the local Labour candidate, or the party Leader. And from what I could see Labour provided the only opportunity, locally, for a change. I've never had a particularly high opinion of Starmer; I couldn't, and still can't, quite, understand his desire, at a relatively late stage in life, to enter party politics. (I had a change of career at about 50, but I didn't set out to be a mover and shaker in my new role). I don't think he understands 'public service' in the party political context, as opposed to the public servant role he had before.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
Is Israel supplying arms to one or other of the sides? That would perk up their interest.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
AFAIK the gifts have been declared!
They have been NOW. They weren't at the time.
When he realised they should have been declared, he declared them though, right? (prior to any media interest?)
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
Alli is a long term donor who had a role in the election, what do the frocks have to do with his having a temporary pass?
LOL. Is that the line you're taking?
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Is there any rule that peers cannot be granted access to Downing Street? This is a genuine question.
It would appear the main issue is Liverpudlians driving large vehicles rather too fast: it’s just riff raff... The area is now inundated with them and they drive around in their 4x4s on these narrow lanes
Perhaps they should introduce a new speed limit in Botwnnog?
Yes, PB is at its best when we are discussing Welsh speed limits.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
The most egregious disconnect was when, from time to time over the past years, Chelsea FC was seen as the natural home of people who, er, lived in Chelsea, and you would see smatterings of schoffels and alice bands in the crowd.
But as you note, they have always been at the pretty "brutal" end of football crowds. But I suppose that they would counter that the Herd were softies, as are all Arsenal fans.
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
It's the same moral blindness I mentioned recently in terms of the donations for the Starmer's clothes.
When the BBC ignores Sudan it's an unimpeachable, neutral but hard-headed, editorial judgement. When anyone else does so it's racist callousness.
I'm sure things are awful in Sudan, and I would like to think that organisations like the BBC and HMG, that have the capacity to respond to more than one war at a time, are doing so. Personally my attention is mainly on Ukraine, because as an individual I have limited bandwidth.
I did see that the Ukrainians hit a Russian drone base in Syria recently though.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
Is it not a little creepy to let another man dress your wife ?
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
The ground in that area is already filled with tunnels, foundations and services. It's an absolute no-goer without many, many billions. It has to be better traffic management on the surrounding streets.
Although not all open to cars the problem is that the A40 is a main east-west arterial route through London. If you take it out you have Wigmore Street and that's about it short of the Marylebone Road which would become even more ugly very quickly and it is pretty ugly as it stands.
Look at how they bogged up Park Lane. Just about the only north-south route in that area and now a nightmare esp travelling North.
Not for trusty Boris bikes, obvs, but for buses and cars and motorbikes, for that matter (cf The Embankment which they really did bog up and which is now impassable West to East for most of the day).
One interesting suggestion was not to dig down.
But go up.
Roof over Oxford Street, with a switch to single decker buses. The new street level is one up, as it were. Unless you insist on keeping the double deckers - then it’s 2.
Pedestrians and bikes on the “roof”
“Downstairs” would have a glass walled (towards the traffic) pedestrian walkway next to the old shop entrances.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
'Many posters' think Trump47 is 'impossible'
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
The Lleyn area is a popular tourist and second home destination where the local culture, including language, is in danger of being swamped.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
'Many posters' think Trump47 is 'impossible'
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
It's not so much that he has imagined it, as that he is deliberately making it up because he is an attention-seeker.
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
Is Israel supplying arms to one or other of the sides? That would perk up their interest.
Not so far as I know. Obscure alliances of middle east states are supporting each side with arms. The BBC's job (entirely overlooked SFAICS) is to report of the who, and the why of this. And of course to report on military progress, outcomes and so on.
Such reporting as there has been has been almost entirely confined to the 'sunt lacrimae rerum' school of war reporting, ie the fact that widows, orphans, the injured, the small shop owner, the refugees, the exiles etc are all having a rough time. Important, but sadly not telling us anything we don't know.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
'Many posters' think Trump47 is 'impossible'
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
Only Kinabalu does. Which of course is dumb, if expected from him. But the rest of you are befuddled as to why it should be so close.
You look at the opinion polls and say "it's close" but have no idea why or what is motivating likely Trump voters. Nor do you seem minded to investigate why this might me.
For a leading political analysis site it is near-unforgiveable.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
AFAIK the gifts have been declared!
They have been NOW. They weren't at the time.
When he realised they should have been declared, he declared them though, right? (prior to any media interest?)
I'm interested in the sudden moral outrage.
Was there a Great Frothing Noise on PB about Mr Cameron's discounted-by-£2200 suit (for example),Sam Cam's Designer Wardrobe (contents thereof), or anything else similar before July 2024?
I'm also amused that I have become "a Labour supporter" .
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course. The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
I actually think Merkel was beyond useful idiot for the Russians, I wouldn't be surprised if in some years we discover that she had much deeper ties to Russia and was considered indirectly an asset by Russian intelligence.
I wonder what a Russian asset who was Germany's Chancellor for 16 years would do ?
Run down Germany's military Get German industry hooked on Russian gas Get German banks hooked on Russian money Encourage a culture where business profits and politicians bribes were more important than national security and human rights Have as many disputes as possible with other western countries Let the third world migrate to Europe
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
The Lleyn area is a popular tourist and second home destination where the local culture, including language, is in danger of being swamped.
Local culture “swamped”, “immigrants” ???
Yes, I know. Interesting, philosophically, though.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
What bollocks!
A good description. He wrote the other day that he's a Harris supporter but having listened to a few moments of the debate he was certain Trump had won it. I was so intrigued I read another of his posts yesterday which was even more bizarre
"A lot of people just repeat propaganda regarding Trump, and have a prejudiced view of his supporters. I am not a supporter but it isn't too hard to see why people support him. The position I am particularly sympathetic to is the one that says that he is the better of two really bad options, with the alternative representing the greater risk".
'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.....' .He's either schitzophrenic or he thinks contradicting himself serves a greater purpose. Why if Trump is the better of 'the two really bad options' does he not support him out and proud?
There do seem to be more than a few shy Trump supporters on here. I'm not sure what's more intriguing: Why they're shy or why they support him?
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
AFAIK the gifts have been declared!
They have been NOW. They weren't at the time.
When he realised they should have been declared, he declared them though, right? (prior to any media interest?)
I'm interested in the sudden moral outrage.
Was there a Great Frothing Noise on PB about Mr Cameron's discounted-by-£2200 suit (for example),Sam Cam's Designer Wardrobe (contents thereof), or anything else similar before July 2024?
I'm also amused that I have become "a Labour supporter" .
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
It’s been at least 18 months of war so far in Sudan.
The war in Yemen has been going even longer, but that’s just the latest incarnation of Sunni vs Shia, which has been going for more than a millennium now. The BBC do occasionally and briefly mention that one in the context of the Houthis hijacking ships.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
The ground in that area is already filled with tunnels, foundations and services. It's an absolute no-goer without many, many billions. It has to be better traffic management on the surrounding streets.
Although not all open to cars the problem is that the A40 is a main east-west arterial route through London. If you take it out you have Wigmore Street and that's about it short of the Marylebone Road which would become even more ugly very quickly and it is pretty ugly as it stands.
Look at how they bogged up Park Lane. Just about the only north-south route in that area and now a nightmare esp travelling North.
Not for trusty Boris bikes, obvs, but for buses and cars and motorbikes, for that matter (cf The Embankment which they really did bog up and which is now impassable West to East for most of the day).
One interesting suggestion was not to dig down.
But go up.
Roof over Oxford Street, with a switch to single decker buses. The new street level is one up, as it were. Unless you insist on keeping the double deckers - then it’s 2.
Pedestrians and bikes on the “roof”
“Downstairs” would have a glass walled (towards the traffic) pedestrian walkway next to the old shop entrances.
There is no politician of sufficient vision and oomph to be able to push that through. Plus it would be weird, wouldn't it?
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
They're going after it because it not only looks dodgy, it is wrong.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
Where is the corruption?
I think you are just being a troll on this now. The offence was not declaring the gift. There probably hasn't been any corruption, but who knows what the future holds. When the phone rings, and Starmer answers and is asked "Do you remember those cloths I paid for? Well now I need..." That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts. FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
AFAIK the gifts have been declared!
They have been NOW. They weren't at the time.
When he realised they should have been declared, he declared them though, right? (prior to any media interest?)
Ok I get it - YOU are Keir Starmer...
He's been an MP long enough to know the bloody rules.
Hmm, to summarise, it's a BMA bod saying they may strike again in the future if future pay deals are shit (and government breaks with pay review recommendations). Is there also a Telegraph story about the sun threatening to rise in the east tomorrow?
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
Is Israel supplying arms to one or other of the sides? That would perk up their interest.
Not so far as I know. Obscure alliances of middle east states are supporting each side with arms. The BBC's job (entirely overlooked SFAICS) is to report of the who, and the why of this. And of course to report on military progress, outcomes and so on.
Such reporting as there has been has been almost entirely confined to the 'sunt lacrimae rerum' school of war reporting, ie the fact that widows, orphans, the injured, the small shop owner, the refugees, the exiles etc are all having a rough time. Important, but sadly not telling us anything we don't know.
Lyse Doucet on the spot in Dresden would have been interesting.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
The ground in that area is already filled with tunnels, foundations and services. It's an absolute no-goer without many, many billions. It has to be better traffic management on the surrounding streets.
Although not all open to cars the problem is that the A40 is a main east-west arterial route through London. If you take it out you have Wigmore Street and that's about it short of the Marylebone Road which would become even more ugly very quickly and it is pretty ugly as it stands.
Look at how they bogged up Park Lane. Just about the only north-south route in that area and now a nightmare esp travelling North.
Not for trusty Boris bikes, obvs, but for buses and cars and motorbikes, for that matter (cf The Embankment which they really did bog up and which is now impassable West to East for most of the day).
One interesting suggestion was not to dig down.
But go up.
Roof over Oxford Street, with a switch to single decker buses. The new street level is one up, as it were. Unless you insist on keeping the double deckers - then it’s 2.
Pedestrians and bikes on the “roof”
“Downstairs” would have a glass walled (towards the traffic) pedestrian walkway next to the old shop entrances.
There is no politician of sufficient vision and oomph to be able to push that through. Plus it would be weird, wouldn't it?
There are many places in the world where ground level rising has turned the ground floor into basements.
Properly designed, it would give
- 100% covered walkways along Oxford Street. No rain-stops-shopping - Total pedestrianisation - *More* space to reorganise bus routes “Downstairs” - To people living and working in flats and offices above Oxford Street, noise and pollution vastly reduced - Low impact on surrounding streets - *Improve* step free access.
Over the years, I suspect the shops would rebuild, quite rapidly, to make the main entrance the “upstairs” one.
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
Hm. I've read various iterations of this story. The thing which impressed me was that the village is 65% Welsh speaking - i.e. even here, deep in the heartlands of (is there a word for the part of Wales that most speaks Wales? I think Ireland has the word Gaeltacht, though I may not be getting the sense quite right), 35% of the population don't speak Welsh.
But on this specific issue, well, you'd never be able to get away with this in England. Imagine suggesting diversity might be bad for an area! It just wouldn't happen.
I don't think it's just nimbysim. People don't want the buildings, but they also don't want outsiders.
Bottwnog is hardly the only village in the UK where some have a suspicion of outsiders and incomers, though the language/culture issue makes this particular example a little more charged.
A thing that is wrong with the BBC. Part 94. R4 Today (and all other outlets) have now spent months ignoring Sudan, the awfullest of all the awful wars going on.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
If you look on their website, you'll find these stories in the last ten days.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
'Many posters' think Trump47 is 'impossible'
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
Only Kinabalu does. Which of course is dumb, if expected from him. But the rest of you are befuddled as to why it should be so close.
You look at the opinion polls and say "it's close" but have no idea why or what is motivating likely Trump voters. Nor do you seem minded to investigate why this might me.
For a leading political analysis site it is near-unforgiveable.
We're not here to spoon-feed you, so you can drop the 'unforgivable' nonsense. DYOR.
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course. The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
I actually think Merkel was beyond useful idiot for the Russians, I wouldn't be surprised if in some years we discover that she had much deeper ties to Russia and was considered indirectly an asset by Russian intelligence.
I wonder what a Russian asset who was Germany's Chancellor for 16 years would do ?
Run down Germany's military Get German industry hooked on Russian gas Get German banks hooked on Russian money Encourage a culture where business profits and politicians bribes were more important than national security and human rights Have as many disputes as possible with other western countries Let the third world migrate to Europe
Indeed, I think it goes beyond useful idiot and we'll find out that some of her inner circle were taking orders from the Kremlin and that she had been captured by their thinking making her their asset.
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
It is a small predominantly Welsh speaking community trying to retain its culture, but I agree it is most likely to fail the appeal
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
Westminster council are currently doing work and pointed out that elderly and disabled people need the buses to get to the front door of the places they want to go to.
It's a long walk from the next street north of Oxford Street to Oxford Street - one my mum couldn't easily do anymore.
We'll see how Oxford Street turns out.
There's no problem with through-buses as long as the level of motor-traffic is in a distinct minority so it is clear that they are "guests in a pedestrian space", and that demarcation is clear.
The Exhibition Road scheme in 2010 failed because "shared space" (ie leave the safety of pedestrians reliant on motor vehicle drivers not being selfish - pigs might fly) left motors uncontrolled. So the vehicular route just became a road without safety features.
One to watch is Taxi Driver organisations using a segment of disabled people as a human shield for their own interest, against the interest of all the other disabled people. That is their modus operandi in eg LTNs and the debate around Bank Junction.
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
It is a small predominantly Welsh speaking community trying to retain its culture, but I agree it is most likely to fail the appeal
The problem is if you try to make that argument about say Englishness and overseas immigrants of a different culture and language, you are rather quickly accused of racism.
That's the Telegrunt trying to astroturf a tiny spat into a wedge issue, I think. It's a couple of Councillors creating a fuss, possibly using Welsh vs English as a stalking horse.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
It is a small predominantly Welsh speaking community trying to retain its culture, but I agree it is most likely to fail the appeal
I think that's a fair description, but I don't see that this small social housing development is a threat to the "predominantly Welsh" nature of the village.
I don't see why a small social housing development would be a magnet for a different language-mix significant enough to have an impact. There are already ways to restrict availability to local people, so the outcome should be for more people who work locally and cannot afford the housing to be able to live locally.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
'Many posters' think Trump47 is 'impossible'
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
Only Kinabalu does. Which of course is dumb, if expected from him. But the rest of you are befuddled as to why it should be so close.
You look at the opinion polls and say "it's close" but have no idea why or what is motivating likely Trump voters. Nor do you seem minded to investigate why this might me.
For a leading political analysis site it is near-unforgiveable.
We're not here to spoon-feed you, so you can drop the 'unforgivable' nonsense. DYOR.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
Arsenal include in their fan base Starmer, Osama bin Laden, Jeremy Corbyn, and worst of all Piers Morgan.
Time to shut the club down.
Why do all these political celebrities (including Osama) follow these big designer clubs? To be fair to Cameron he went full Cinderella, flying the flag for Aston Ham United.
Regarding the brief discussion with @rcs1000 last night, this sort of thing isn'tdirectly captured in the trade figures, but it's part of German exports getting crucified in China.
Denza - Wow.
2010: Mercedes and BYD form 50-50 JV creating the Denza brand. Sales: 132
2021: BYD increases to 90% - Mercedes 10% Sales: 4,800
Sept 2024: BYD 100% - Mercedes out Sales: 125,000 (f)
It's the Chinese way, force a JV with a western company, steal the IP, push the western company out of the JV and then use subsidies to bankrupt the western company the IP was stolen from. I don't understand how American and European companies keep falling for it, "this time it will be different" or "it happened to them but we've paid off the right people so it won't happen to us" seems to be the main logic.
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course. The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
I actually think Merkel was beyond useful idiot for the Russians, I wouldn't be surprised if in some years we discover that she had much deeper ties to Russia and was considered indirectly an asset by Russian intelligence.
She was certainly an avid communist in her youth, but werent most young people in the seventies?
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
Arsenal include in their fan base Starmer, Osama bin Laden, Jeremy Corbyn, and worst of all Piers Morgan.
Time to shut the club down.
Why do all these political celebrities (including Osama) follow these big designer clubs? To be fair to Cameron he went full Cinderella, flying the flag for Aston Ham United.
The Cameron derby is one of the highlights of the Premier League season.
He scrapes Penn by the tiny margin and there are days of court cases but he holds it.
He wins NC and MI. Again by small numbers.
But its enough and America and the West are f*cked.
I'm depressed writing this prediction and hope I am very very wrong but I think the polling is underplaying his 'shy trump voters' who refuse to deal with polling.
Comments
And we also struggle to understand how nearly 50% are willing to vote for Trump and know they can't all be that stupid so don't understand what is going on and have never seen a sensible explanation.
Great, great news anyway.
Incidentally, when they rebuilt Oxford Circus tube station decades ago, they put a bridge above the works. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/operation-umbrella-rebuilding-oxford-circus/
This fits in with my experiences of dealing with Welsh rugby union fans.
The Welsh village where English speakers aren’t welcome
Plans for a new housing estate in North Wales were blocked after concerns that English incomers could cause ‘significant harm’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/16/welsh-village-botwnnog-english-speakers-not-welcome/
(My role is >90% research. Teaching-heavy universities will be well and truly screwed as there is indeed no new money to pay for the pay rises.)
Who is to say that 24-28-32 won't show similar dramatic swings ?
(Just for example, you could imagine a Democratic landslide this year; a reformed GOP; an economic crash or similar; a massive swing back.)
56-64-72 saw big forces, both internal (civil rights) and external (Vietnam) puling the country in different directions. The time we're in now is hardly one of peace and world stability...
He should not have had access. It stinks. It reeks.
Did they seriously try? I don't know that either.
I was pointing out the weirdness of the use of RPI in the claim very, very early.
However, we are where we are, and they are not setting the agenda any more.
I'm amused that Labour fans are having to defend the party over corruption after only a couple of months - and that the corruption goes to the top.
I don't think my comments would serve any purpose were they to be the work of a professional propogandist. I can only assume that they are striking a nerve with people who also have doubts about 'the dominant narrative'. This is quite the contrast to many other posts on this website which appear to reiterate the dominant narrative on the virtues of Harris and the Democrats, becoming quite abusive at points in the face of challenge/disagreement, and passing through largely unquestioned.
https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811663
But then you look at how Germany fell for what was quite possibly a Russian influence operation, and destroyed its nuclear industry in favour of gas.
Long term strategic thinking hasn't been a western strength for a while now.
No one was 'forced', of course.
The example of Tesla demonstrates that (although China has quite happily nicked some of their manufacturing knowhow, too).
What I’m taking about cut and cover, New York style.
Yes, various things would need moving. But ultimately it would a permanent solution. Rather than a sticking plaster every few years.
Look at how they bogged up Park Lane. Just about the only north-south route in that area and now a nightmare esp travelling North.
Not for trusty Boris bikes, obvs, but for buses and cars and motorbikes, for that matter (cf The Embankment which they really did bog up and which is now impassable West to East for most of the day).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/16/he-will-hate-this-profile-how-donor-waheed-alli-became-a-labour-fixer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_
Interesting write up here by the way
But I do not think Rishi was to blame here. Rather, I suspect the no-negotiation tactic was due to Jeremy Hunt who had done the same thing to beat the junior doctors over his new 7-day week contracts.
That's the point of the rules around declaring gifts.
FFS I need to do it as a lowly Uni academic.
And it makes trading and big changes in the odds more complicated.
Not all Rep voters are supporters of Trump. They are voting negatively, i.e. against the Dems. Or they vote Rep whoever is the candidate. It's not all about Trump.
Perhaps they should introduce a new speed limit in Botwnnog?
There are one or two reasons for feeling hopeful about a Trump regime, despite the immense risks. The major one in international. the USA's allies have no idea what he will do in situation X. He might go and play golf, he might declare that he can walk on water, he might engineer an insurrection, he might go and sexually assault someone.
The good bit is that the USA's enemies don't know either. The other goodish bit is that he knows that there are more votes in peace than there are in war in this particular period of history.
Popular Vote
Harris 50.8 - 47.5 Trump
Electoral College
Trump 278 - 260 Harris (Trump adds AZ, GA & PA to 2020)
I haven't a foggiest about Congress.
"Mr Ecclestone gave Labour £1m only months before the election and was in talks over another £1m. Yet on October 16 he had been to Downing Street to meet Mr Blair and lobby him to exempt formula one racing from a tobacco advertising ban, arguing that as many as 200,000 jobs could be lost."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/sep/20/labour.labour1997to99
I've never had a particularly high opinion of Starmer; I couldn't, and still can't, quite, understand his desire, at a relatively late stage in life, to enter party politics. (I had a change of career at about 50, but I didn't set out to be a mover and shaker in my new role). I don't think he understands 'public service' in the party political context, as opposed to the public servant role he had before.
This morning they report on the assertion (correct) that Sudan is being ignored by the world because of reasons, including racism and African lives mattering little to movers and shakers.
They honestly give the appearance of thinking that as long as they do this they can carry on ignoring it.
They have done three large articles on this since September 5th. I debunked most of it last time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=telegraph+Botwnnog&oq=telegraph+Botwnnog
The only thing in the article which is about right imo is that it is to do with Nimbydom, not language; some people don't want 18 social houses in their village of 996 people.
It already has schools where there is a mix of pupils, and where the large majority are fine with Welsh or English.
The decision is imo unlikely to withstand an Appeal.
pollwebpage but there are no such polls showing Kamala 10 points up that I have seen...But as you note, they have always been at the pretty "brutal" end of football crowds. But I suppose that they would counter that the Herd were softies, as are all Arsenal fans.
When the BBC ignores Sudan it's an unimpeachable, neutral but hard-headed, editorial judgement. When anyone else does so it's racist callousness.
I'm sure things are awful in Sudan, and I would like to think that organisations like the BBC and HMG, that have the capacity to respond to more than one war at a time, are doing so. Personally my attention is mainly on Ukraine, because as an individual I have limited bandwidth.
I did see that the Ukrainians hit a Russian drone base in Syria recently though.
But go up.
Roof over Oxford Street, with a switch to single decker buses. The new street level is one up, as it were. Unless you insist on keeping the double deckers - then it’s 2.
Pedestrians and bikes on the “roof”
“Downstairs” would have a glass walled (towards the traffic) pedestrian walkway next to the old shop entrances.
You seem to have imagined this - have any posters said that, let alone many? The closest I can find is Barnesian I guess, though they don't say Trump winning is impossible.
Such reporting as there has been has been almost entirely confined to the 'sunt lacrimae rerum' school of war reporting, ie the fact that widows, orphans, the injured, the small shop owner, the refugees, the exiles etc are all having a rough time. Important, but sadly not telling us anything we don't know.
You look at the opinion polls and say "it's close" but have no idea why or what is motivating likely Trump voters. Nor do you seem minded to investigate why this might me.
For a leading political analysis site it is near-unforgiveable.
Junior Doctors to strike for even more pay
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/17/doctors-threaten-strikes-despite-pay-deal-politics-latest/
Was there a Great Frothing Noise on PB about Mr Cameron's discounted-by-£2200 suit (for example),Sam Cam's Designer Wardrobe (contents thereof), or anything else similar before July 2024?
I'm also amused that I have become "a Labour supporter"
Run down Germany's military
Get German industry hooked on Russian gas
Get German banks hooked on Russian money
Encourage a culture where business profits and politicians bribes were more important than national security and human rights
Have as many disputes as possible with other western countries
Let the third world migrate to Europe
Yes, I know. Interesting, philosophically, though.
"A lot of people just repeat propaganda regarding Trump, and have a prejudiced view of his supporters. I am not a supporter but it isn't too hard to see why people support him. The position I am particularly sympathetic to is the one that says that he is the better of two really bad options, with the alternative representing the greater risk".
'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.....' .He's either schitzophrenic or he thinks contradicting himself serves a greater purpose. Why if Trump is the better of 'the two really bad options' does he not support him out and proud?
There do seem to be more than a few shy Trump supporters on here. I'm not sure what's more intriguing: Why they're shy or why they support him?
The war in Yemen has been going even longer, but that’s just the latest incarnation of Sunni vs Shia, which has been going for more than a millennium now. The BBC do occasionally and briefly mention that one in the context of the Houthis hijacking ships.
He's been an MP long enough to know the bloody rules.
Just to pay off the interest you have to earn about £53K, still leaving you with all the principal.
Doctors are starting on £35K or thereabouts. (Open to correction). Other professions much less.
Graduates, including doctors, are being shafted. Top education is a public as well as a private good.
But the Junior doctors themselves declared they would be back for more just a month ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5yy13ng33o
Properly designed, it would give
- 100% covered walkways along Oxford Street. No rain-stops-shopping
- Total pedestrianisation
- *More* space to reorganise bus routes “Downstairs”
- To people living and working in flats and offices above Oxford Street, noise and pollution vastly reduced
- Low impact on surrounding streets
- *Improve* step free access.
Over the years, I suspect the shops would rebuild, quite rapidly, to make the main entrance the “upstairs” one.
But on this specific issue, well, you'd never be able to get away with this in England. Imagine suggesting diversity might be bad for an area! It just wouldn't happen.
I don't think it's just nimbysim. People don't want the buildings, but they also don't want outsiders.
Bottwnog is hardly the only village in the UK where some have a suspicion of outsiders and incomers, though the language/culture issue makes this particular example a little more charged.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq8y2ykeyqo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n2r5395lo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dy1x906p6o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn024xe9gq5o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93pv3z36dxo
What you mean is that broadcast news has been more or less ignoring it.
There's no problem with through-buses as long as the level of motor-traffic is in a distinct minority so it is clear that they are "guests in a pedestrian space", and that demarcation is clear.
The Exhibition Road scheme in 2010 failed because "shared space" (ie leave the safety of pedestrians reliant on motor vehicle drivers not being selfish - pigs might fly) left motors uncontrolled. So the vehicular route just became a road without safety features.
One to watch is Taxi Driver organisations using a segment of disabled people as a human shield for their own interest, against the interest of all the other disabled people. That is their modus operandi in eg LTNs and the debate around Bank Junction.
I don't see why a small social housing development would be a magnet for a different language-mix significant enough to have an impact. There are already ways to restrict availability to local people, so the outcome should be for more people who work locally and cannot afford the housing to be able to live locally.
However Doctors get paid extremely well over time and have fat pensions others dont get, Some of them even get to work 26 hour weeks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/17/gps-work-an-average-of-26-hours-a-week-study-finds/
He scrapes Penn by the tiny margin and there are days of court cases but he holds it.
He wins NC and MI. Again by small numbers.
But its enough and America and the West are f*cked.
I'm depressed writing this prediction and hope I am very very wrong but I think the polling is underplaying his 'shy trump voters' who refuse to deal with polling.