There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
I pointed out earlier.
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
Feels like a Barnard Castle; Starmer has made the mistake of trying to explain things.
Same with Arsenal tickets. Yes, a billion pounds has to be paid for security and he must sit in a bullet proof box or something. But he should still stump up the going rate for a stand ticket or whatever. Last time I was at Highbury it was about 50p (literally) but I think it may have gone up.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
I pointed out earlier.
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
Leon is both a bit slow, and a little overexcitable.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
I pointed out earlier.
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
And another week on the end?
Besides that’s not the explanation given. The problem for Labour is that the explanation given does not fit the facts of the matter. And everyone can see it
And that’s problematic because outright lying is a greater sin than mere grift
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
It’s Central London?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent a place there?
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
The scale of Starmer freebie’s seems different to anything we have seen since Boris’s holidays, indeed even a step up from that. It’s a bit greedy and doesn’t reflect well on him.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
Well Badenoch is happy to take freebies and there are questions about Jenrick raised here.
Let he or she who is free of all sin. Etc etc.
Don’t forget the third favourite, Clevery. He’s declared £70k in cash for his leadership campaign, plus £11k in kind for campaigning activities and £10k in kind office space.
One thing I think Foxy's excellent recent header didn't pick up on ?
In a First Among (US) Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women At Grace Church in Waco, Texas, the Generation Z gender divide can be seen in the pews. It has the potential to reshape both politics and family life. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/young-men-religion-gen-z.html
Scary! Though on the basis that all religions are misogynistic and that the misogynistic restrictions on abortion have been brought in at the behest of the religious right perhaps not surprising. (I have no knowledge of Grace church's position on abortion, they may be liberal christians)
it's a very good article, though the claim that women are 'leaving' is imo overegged; the piece itself talks more about changes of affiliation to places that embrace equality more, rather than complementarian (eg women are homemakers) type positions.
Grace Church seems to be fairly normal, small-medium size (225 spaces in the parking lot) mainstream Southern Baptist church - though perhaps a little non-typical in being a little neo-pentecostal (ie charismatic at least partially in practice if not in dogma), with elements of calvinism. They believe that church leadership is for men. They don't embrace Health and Wealth (ie Prosperity Gospel) positions. With that background their position on homosexuality will likely be 'God loves you as people, but you must be celibate'. *
A good illustrative example of a controversy quoted was an argument about whether young women should ask young men out on dates, or if the protagnonist role should be for men to take.
IMO it's probably a core recruiting ground for Trump, though not matching his core values in being institutionally racist at a level of dogma.
The social phenomenon of some young women rejecting churches that oppress them (in eg feminist terms) is an interesting one, which may be the leading edge of a big social trend. In 25 years time these churches could be full of single, angry and resentful, middle-aged men. Some may have left and rejected their faith. I've seen similar here aongst some both men and women who maintained what they saw as "the lifestyle" (usually without the complementarian gloss), then did a 180 turn and rejected all of it.
* From what I think is the website: "We believe that God created human beings in his image in two embodied sexual kinds—male and female (Genesis 1:26-27). We believe that God designed marriage to consist of a union between man and a woman, which is complementary, involving one of each sexual gender, exclusive, and permanent (Genesis 2:18, 24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Hebrews 13:4). Christian singleness is not a state of insufficiency but rather, like marriage, is a gift bestowed by God (1 Corinthians 7:7; Matthew 19:11)." https://gracewaco.com/beliefs
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
I pointed out earlier.
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
And another week on the end?
Besides that’s not the explanation given. The problem for Labour is that the explanation given does not fit the facts of the matter. And everyone can see it
And that’s problematic because outright lying is a greater sin than mere grift
To deal with a potential hung parliament negotiations.
As someone has pointed out on TwiX, Labour have suspended MPs for voting against the two child benefit cap, but immensely wealthy Sir Sheer Wanker insists HIS son must have an £18 million penthouse to use for free, while he’s doing his exams, even if he’s not actually doing exams
Thank god Labour aren’t “one rule for us and one rule for everyone else”
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
You can claim that if your wife/husband/civil partner is earning below the tax threshold
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Exam dates: May 9-June 19
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
I pointed out earlier.
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
And another week on the end?
Besides that’s not the explanation given. The problem for Labour is that the explanation given does not fit the facts of the matter. And everyone can see it
And that’s problematic because outright lying is a greater sin than mere grift
The dates for the start of GCSEs are the dates for the start of *some* exams for *some* boards, by the way.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
The do nothing GOP Congress maintains its record for being useless.
House GOP feels déjà vu as new funding fight ends with no wins https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4897421-house-republicans-shutdown-deadline/ House Republicans are feeling dejected as they prepare to kick yet another shutdown deadline down the road without securing major wins, an outcome some blame on their own dysfunction. Once again, even though they have the House majority, Republicans will rely on dozens of Democrats to pass a three-month funding extension. They can’t pass the bill with just GOP votes because of opposition from hard-line conservatives. And because they have to rely on House Democrats to move forward, they hold zero leverage with the Democratic Senate. Wednesday’s vote will be the final legislative action in the House before the election, and it will be symbolic of the disputes that have dogged the House GOP conference over the last 21 months. It has contributed to a pair of Speaker fights, multiple embarrassing failed votes on the floor and infighting that has spilled into the public view. “If you’ve been here more than like, a year, it’s all the same thing over and over again,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus...
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Other way round. With frocks and glasses, actual cash changed hands. At Arsenal, there was a commercial value because no-one else could hire it while Starmer was watching the game, but none of this applies where the boy was using a room in a flat, even an expensive flat. If there is a scandal here, it will be around how the boy travelled: Lord Alli's cab account or the Metropolitan Police taxi service would both be problematic.
No, it’s because the explanation offered for the £20k loan of the flat sounds like a desperate lie, and that, in reality, the Starmers wanted the flat for another reason
I have no idea if this is true or not. But the explanation IS bizarre and even lefties on TwiX are scoffing at it
This is important because if it is a lie and if it can be PROVED it is a lie then I reckon Mr “dutiful service” Starmer would have to resign
OK let's suppose the whole Starmer family were at the flat while Keir was out campaigning. It still means no cash changes hands, and any economy with the actualité can be handwaved away for personal or security reasons and in any case the GCSE revision still stands.
The time to take this story seriously is when one of Jenrick, Kemi, Cleverly or Tugendhat condemns Starmer and demands his resignation.
As someone has pointed out on TwiX, Labour have suspended MPs for voting against the two child benefit cap, but immensely wealthy Sir Sheer Wanker insists HIS son must have an £18 million penthouse to use for free, while he’s doing his exams, even if he’s not actually doing exams
Thank god Labour aren’t “one rule for us and one rule for everyone else”
Joe Biden wants to help Ukraine win without Russia losing. Good luck with that. Definition of squaring the circle I'd say.
A bit clumsy but isn't the only solution one in which both sides can settle on not losing?
Not necessarily, no. The absurd reasons for not supplying longer range missiles to Ukraine suggests the US can't even be bothered. A ceasefire on the current lines wouldn't be the worse thing in the world so long as the Russian economy is continually strangled through sanctions. But even there the efforts seem halfhearted as Ed Conway has pointed out.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
"If" doing quite a bit there. Can't see it happening, but we'll see,
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
I must have imagined all the stuff about decorating No 10 then, or Sunak using helicopters, or Truss's photograper?
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
If I became PM, I wonder what I would have to register if I stayed over, as I often do, on my son's couch?
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
"To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK."
This place has become utterly deranged.
Is Lord Alli his employer ? No. Next !
The use of Downing Street is counted as a BIK as per long standing practice.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
I must have imagined all the stuff about decorating No 10 then, or Sunak using helicopters, or Truss's photograper?
Joe Biden wants to help Ukraine win without Russia losing. Good luck with that. Definition of squaring the circle I'd say.
A bit clumsy but isn't the only solution one in which both sides can settle on not losing?
Not necessarily, no. The absurd reasons for not supplying longer range missiles to Ukraine suggests the US can't even be bothered. A ceasefire on the current lines wouldn't be the worse thing in the world so long as the Russian economy is continually strangled through sanctions. But even there the efforts seem halfhearted as Ed Conway has pointed out.
I would say it more about Russia not losing too much. The Biden administration seem to worry about poor old Miss Escalation.
As someone has pointed out on TwiX, Labour have suspended MPs for voting against the two child benefit cap, but immensely wealthy Sir Sheer Wanker insists HIS son must have an £18 million penthouse to use for free, while he’s doing his exams, even if he’s not actually doing exams
Thank god Labour aren’t “one rule for us and one rule for everyone else”
Hypocrisy is not a resigning matter, unfortunately.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
Sadly Labour boxed themselves in on the triple lock during the campaign
They should have made the usual "no plans" statement and then scrapped the triple lock and linked to earning/inflation/whatever they can get away with.
The state pension needs to be viable going forward.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
"To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK."
This place has become utterly deranged.
Is Lord Alli his employer ? No. Next !...
It does, of course, remain a benefit in kind for tax purposes. But not liable to income tax, as it's a gift.
As someone has pointed out on TwiX, Labour have suspended MPs for voting against the two child benefit cap, but immensely wealthy Sir Sheer Wanker insists HIS son must have an £18 million penthouse to use for free, while he’s doing his exams, even if he’s not actually doing exams
Thank god Labour aren’t “one rule for us and one rule for everyone else”
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Do you believe that Tories actively used PPE to steal money? Or were they just desperately turning to anyone who said they could help? As Reeves also provided a list (that was bunkum).
I think some poor deals were struck, some have undoubtedly got away with murder, but I don't believe individual ministers profitted. If you have evidence of criminality perhaps report it to the authorities? I believe a new one will be along soon.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
Thankfully there is no danger of that, here on PB. The key issue is discussed, in great depth and detail every other posts – by a handpicked half-dozen on supreme experts. PB is truly the tool of the people, a beacon of democracy shining a light for the forgotten 2%.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
I must have imagined all the stuff about decorating No 10 then, or Sunak using helicopters, or Truss's photograper?
Wasn’t the point about the decorations that they weren’t declared properly at first, or am I misremembering? Apologies if so.
Sunak’s use of helicopters was about the use of public money to pay for (some of) it. There was a Guardian article criticising Sunak for taking a donation from Frank Hester for a helicopter ride, but the Guardian is not Labour and the concern there was specifically around Hester.
What was Truss’s photographer? Wasn’t that also about the spending of public money?
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
I’m just thoroughly enjoying giving Labour a kicking because
1. It’s fun and it makes a change 2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it 3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
I must have imagined all the stuff about decorating No 10 then, or Sunak using helicopters, or Truss's photograper?
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It has been speculated upon, and there's no evidence I have seen, that Starmer and his wife now live very separate lives.
This would certainly accord with all the bachelor pad style living in various kindly donated bolt holes.
If it is true (and it's a HUGE if), I have no idea how they plan to survive cooped up in a small flat in Number 10, even with Boris's beautiful wallpaper to cheer them up.
That’s personal, irrelevant, and unworthy of you. The workings of someone else’s marriage has no bearing on anything
Sir Kier needs to sever all links with Lord Alli. He's becoming a Rasputin figure, dominating every aspect of Sir Keir's life to the extent that he even has a stake in the education of Sir Keir's children. This is not an acquaintance or supporter; this is a benefactor. Sir must step out from Alli's shadow and stand tall.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
There was a case a few years ago of two female police officers who looked after each others children and were held to be infringing some law or other or liable for tax as a benefit (I fail to recall the details).
George Osborne once looked after Ed Balls' son, while Balls went on the radio to criticise Osborne. I mean if that's not a benefit 'in kind' I don't know what is.
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
I’m just thoroughly enjoying giving Labour a kicking because
1. It’s fun and it makes a change 2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it 3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
You voted for him, this is on you, I will remind you of this regularly.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Do you believe that Tories actively used PPE to steal money? Or were they just desperately turning to anyone who said they could help? As Reeves also provided a list (that was bunkum).
I think some poor deals were struck, some have undoubtedly got away with murder, but I don't believe individual ministers profitted. If you have evidence of criminality perhaps report it to the authorities? I believe a new one will be along soon.
Yes. Isn't there supposed to be an inquiry to ascertain whether public funds were misappropriated by occupants of the fast track, and their sponsors in Westminster?
Joe Biden wants to help Ukraine win without Russia losing. Good luck with that. Definition of squaring the circle I'd say.
A bit clumsy but isn't the only solution one in which both sides can settle on not losing?
Not necessarily, no. The absurd reasons for not supplying longer range missiles to Ukraine suggests the US can't even be bothered. A ceasefire on the current lines wouldn't be the worse thing in the world so long as the Russian economy is continually strangled through sanctions. But even there the efforts seem halfhearted as Ed Conway has pointed out.
I would say it more about Russia not losing too much. The Biden administration seem to worry about poor old Miss Escalation.
The thing is our adversaries don't seem to worry about us losing 'too much.' Biden's attempts at being diplomatic have been interpreted as nothing more than weakness. I get the sense he still wants to butter up Russian elites sans Putin. The same elites who've been apathetic about a barbaric war being waged.
We are facing an organised axis of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Deal with Russia and Iran and therefore isolate China.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
Tories currently 2.8 on Betfair for most seats seems really poor value to me.
Lab 1.96 most seats looks reasonable value but 4.5 years is a long time in politics.
I remember when Con ~2 for most seats at GE2024 looked like value! (to me, at least )
ETA: Just noticed that I made up the losses on that with winning bets on Con seat numbers (banded) which I'd forgotten about but placed late after the market was flagged up on here. So thank you, whoever put me on to that.
I have reminded myself of the details of wallpapergate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_refurbishment_controversy The central criticism of wallpapergate was that a loan to pay for the refurbishments was not declared. The Electoral Commission found that the Conservative Party had failed to follow the law by failing to declare donations from Lord Brownlow. So far, I’m not aware of any donations from Lord Alli failing to be declared.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
Thankfully there is no danger of that, here on PB. The key issue is discussed, in great depth and detail every other posts – by a handpicked half-dozen on supreme experts. PB is truly the tool of the people, a beacon of democracy shining a light for the forgotten 2%.
It's those two percent that make all the noise. And write the news. So, yes, they matter
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
"To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK."
This place has become utterly deranged.
Is Lord Alli his employer ? No. Next !...
It does, of course, remain a benefit in kind for tax purposes. But not liable to income tax, as it's a gift.
It's not different if you're Lord Alli is it? His spare room is a massive penthouse in London,
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
A sign of how well pensioners have done (relatively) that the state pension is overtaking the personal allowance. It wasn't close in 2010.
Triple locking the personal allowance to the pension is a great idea, just make sure you've got Janet Street Porter in a soundproof cell before the announcement.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
Indeed, can someone point me to the Labour complaining that some Tories got free tickets to sports events?
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
"If" doing quite a bit there. Can't see it happening, but we'll see,
Fiscal drag is built in until 2027 - and this time next year it's highly likely the state pension will hit the magic £12,570 figure...
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
I’m just thoroughly enjoying giving Labour a kicking because
1. It’s fun and it makes a change 2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it 3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
You voted for him, this is on you, I will remind you of this regularly.
Which is fair. But you can't really criticise a man for having.... hope
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Do you believe that Tories actively used PPE to steal money? Or were they just desperately turning to anyone who said they could help? As Reeves also provided a list (that was bunkum).
I think some poor deals were struck, some have undoubtedly got away with murder, but I don't believe individual ministers profitted. If you have evidence of criminality perhaps report it to the authorities? I believe a new one will be along soon.
Yes. Isn't there supposed to be an inquiry to ascertain whether public funds were misappropriated by occupants of the fast track, and their sponsors in Westminster?
I'm happy to believe that some people have made (lots of money) from supplying PPE to the UK during the pandemic. I also believe some failed to deliver what was promised.
I do not believe that members of the government profited from this.
I recall an air of desperation, when even our dearest friends, the French, stole PPE that was en route to the UK. I recall Labour screaming about suppliers that the government hadn't considered (but turned out to be rubbish).
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Just because it is notional, doesn't change the value.
That said I have a friend who owns a corporate entertainment venue. Occasionally he will let a charity hold an event there for free - usually on a Monday or a Tuesday when there is no much demand for corporate hire.
Costs him very little, but benefits the charity.
But what is the true value? The cost to him or the benefit to the recipient? Or neither?
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
Indeed, can someone point me to the Labour complaining that some Tories got free tickets to sports events?
To be fair, it's mostly not actual Conservatives complaining about Labour. The running is being made by excitable hacks who have simply read the latest declarations.
Sir Kier needs to sever all links with Lord Alli. He's becoming a Rasputin figure, dominating every aspect of Sir Keir's life to the extent that he even has a stake in the education of Sir Keir's children. This is not an acquaintance or supporter; this is a benefactor. Sir must step out from Alli's shadow and stand tall.
We had all this with Bernie-gate on Day 1 (was it? Feels like it) of TBlair's reign. (Google: made in Jan 1997, declared in Nov 1997 so worse, as it was before Day 1).
Didn't seem to do him much harm.
Although as Owen Jones, and indeed John Curtice point out, Lab won with the votes of 17.5% of British adults. So they aren't universally loved, even if that is the electoral system we know and love.
One thing I think Foxy's excellent recent header didn't pick up on ?
In a First Among (US) Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women At Grace Church in Waco, Texas, the Generation Z gender divide can be seen in the pews. It has the potential to reshape both politics and family life. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/young-men-religion-gen-z.html
Scary! Though on the basis that all religions are misogynistic and that the misogynistic restrictions on abortion have been brought in at the behest of the religious right perhaps not surprising. (I have no knowledge of Grace church's position on abortion, they may be liberal christians)
it's a very good article, though the claim that women are 'leaving' is imo overegged; the piece itself talks more about changes of affiliation to places that embrace equality more, rather than complementarian (eg women are homemakers) type positions.
Grace Church seems to be fairly normal, small-medium size (225 spaces in the parking lot) mainstream Southern Baptist church - though perhaps a little non-typical in being a little neo-pentecostal (ie charismatic at least partially in practice if not in dogma), with elements of calvinism. They believe that church leadership is for men. They don't embrace Health and Wealth (ie Prosperity Gospel) positions. With that background their position on homosexuality will likely be 'God loves you as people, but you must be celibate'. *
A good illustrative example of a controversy quoted was an argument about whether young women should ask young men out on dates, or if the protagnonist role should be for men to take.
IMO it's probably a core recruiting ground for Trump, though not matching his core values in being institutionally racist at a level of dogma.
The social phenomenon of some young women rejecting churches that oppress them (in eg feminist terms) is an interesting one, which may be the leading edge of a big social trend. In 25 years time these churches could be full of single, angry and resentful, middle-aged men. Some may have left and rejected their faith. I've seen similar here aongst some both men and women who maintained what they saw as "the lifestyle" (usually without the complementarian gloss), then did a 180 turn and rejected all of it.
* From what I think is the website: "We believe that God created human beings in his image in two embodied sexual kinds—male and female (Genesis 1:26-27). We believe that God designed marriage to consist of a union between man and a woman, which is complementary, involving one of each sexual gender, exclusive, and permanent (Genesis 2:18, 24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Hebrews 13:4). Christian singleness is not a state of insufficiency but rather, like marriage, is a gift bestowed by God (1 Corinthians 7:7; Matthew 19:11)." https://gracewaco.com/beliefs
The bit where most of these fundamentalists show they are, of course, nothing of the kind is in that 'permanent' bit about marriage. For some decades now this has inconvenienced people who are otherwise properly judgmental about all forms of deviance from what they imagine are biblical norms. Divorce and remarriage is rife in America, including in evangelical church circles.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
Sadly Labour boxed themselves in on the triple lock during the campaign
They should have made the usual "no plans" statement and then scrapped the triple lock and linked to earning/inflation/whatever they can get away with.
The state pension needs to be viable going forward.
Mathematically the triple lock is unsustainable.
By 2072 estimates are that it would cost more than 20% of GDP, and we would need to double income tax to pay for it.
It's a just a matter of time before it has to go & if we had grown up politicians (on both sides), they would admit it.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
Indeed, can someone point me to the Labour complaining that some Tories got free tickets to sports events?
To be fair, it's mostly not actual Conservatives complaining about Labour. The running is being made by excitable hacks who have simply read the latest declarations.
The Conservatives have got better self-preservation instincts. Especially now they are in opposition and need the money themselves.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
That is a mystery. There has been a full moon and everything.
No doubt the Tories have been receiving plenty of gifts too. Why is it different for Labour? Because they have spent years bleating on about how venal and awful the Tories are for doing this, and have been shown to be just the same.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
I do not recall Labour complaining about Tories accepting declared tickets to football matches or in-kind office space or money for posh clothes, although they did complain about Johnson not declaring some things. They largely complained about poor management of the economy and the country.
Indeed, can someone point me to the Labour complaining that some Tories got free tickets to sports events?
To be fair, it's mostly not actual Conservatives complaining about Labour. The running is being made by excitable hacks who have simply read the latest declarations.
Fair point. Indeed Kemi was on the airwaves the other day saying it was all bollocks. (I get the Mandy Rice-Davies factor but still...)
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Boris Johnson committed an unambiguous breach of the rules when he failed to get permission from the ministerial appointments watchdog before taking a job as a Daily Mail columnist, which has led to calls for reform of the “good chaps” system.
The former prime minister was unveiled as a writer for the newspaper earlier this month, but he only told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) half an hour before the appointment was made public.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
Thankfully there is no danger of that, here on PB. The key issue is discussed, in great depth and detail every other posts – by a handpicked half-dozen on supreme experts. PB is truly the tool of the people, a beacon of democracy shining a light for the forgotten 2%.
It's those two percent that make all the noise. And write the news. So, yes, they matter
And this works both ways, naturally
They make the noise and write something (not really news in this case).
Do they matter? Well, much less than they once did.
I'd love someone to ask the hacks what they got on expenses and 'in kind' last year.
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
I’m just thoroughly enjoying giving Labour a kicking because
1. It’s fun and it makes a change 2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it 3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
You voted for him, this is on you, I will remind you of this regularly.
Which is fair. But you can't really criticise a man for having.... hope
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
Thankfully there is no danger of that, here on PB. The key issue is discussed, in great depth and detail every other posts – by a handpicked half-dozen on supreme experts. PB is truly the tool of the people, a beacon of democracy shining a light for the forgotten 2%.
It's those two percent that make all the noise. And write the news. So, yes, they matter
And this works both ways, naturally
They make the noise and write something (not really news in this case).
Do they matter? Well, much less than they once did.
I'd love someone to ask the hacks what they got on expenses and 'in kind' last year.
Would be a good laugh reading that.
Fucksake this argument is so lame. Hacks don't run the country, and they don't run the country via election campaigns when they promise to "clean up politics" and act in "service" to the nation
Comments
Sunak calls election on May 22nd for July 4th.
When you look at those dates, it makes senses why he wants to get out of the house and some peace.
Pigs to men and back to pigs. Orwell had it spot on.
Same with Arsenal tickets. Yes, a billion pounds has to be paid for security and he must sit in a bullet proof box or something. But he should still stump up the going rate for a stand ticket or whatever. Last time I was at Highbury it was about 50p (literally) but I think it may have gone up.
Never complain. Never explain.
Besides that’s not the explanation given. The problem for Labour is that the explanation given does not fit the facts of the matter. And everyone can see it
And that’s problematic because outright lying is a greater sin than mere grift
I'm surprised to see that a Junior Room in the Savoy is £1300 per night!
£20k would be enough for 40 nights in a £500 a night hotel. Even in London that sounds quite a lot!
It’s a bit greedy and doesn’t reflect well on him.
Grace Church seems to be fairly normal, small-medium size (225 spaces in the parking lot) mainstream Southern Baptist church - though perhaps a little non-typical in being a little neo-pentecostal (ie charismatic at least partially in practice if not in dogma), with elements of calvinism. They believe that church leadership is for men. They don't embrace Health and Wealth (ie Prosperity Gospel) positions. With that background their position on homosexuality will likely be 'God loves you as people, but you must be celibate'. *
A good illustrative example of a controversy quoted was an argument about whether young women should ask young men out on dates, or if the protagnonist role should be for men to take.
IMO it's probably a core recruiting ground for Trump, though not matching his core values in being institutionally racist at a level of dogma.
The social phenomenon of some young women rejecting churches that oppress them (in eg feminist terms) is an interesting one, which may be the leading edge of a big social trend. In 25 years time these churches could be full of single, angry and resentful, middle-aged men. Some may have left and rejected their faith. I've seen similar here aongst some both men and women who maintained what they saw as "the lifestyle" (usually without the complementarian gloss), then did a 180 turn and rejected all of it.
* From what I think is the website:
"We believe that God created human beings in his image in two embodied sexual kinds—male and female (Genesis 1:26-27). We believe that God designed marriage to consist of a union between man and a woman, which is complementary, involving one of each sexual gender, exclusive, and permanent (Genesis 2:18, 24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Hebrews 13:4). Christian singleness is not a state of insufficiency but rather, like marriage, is a gift bestowed by God (1 Corinthians 7:7; Matthew 19:11)."
https://gracewaco.com/beliefs
Thank god Labour aren’t “one rule for us and one rule for everyone else”
Ukraine and Russia agree that it was all some kind of weird BobbyEwingInTheShowerWholeSeasonWasADream thing and go back to the 2014 borders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/25/labour-leadership-loses-conference-vote-on-winter-fuel-payments
Widely predicted, but still.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
1. PPE (by a mile)
2. Desmond
3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
House GOP feels déjà vu as new funding fight ends with no wins
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4897421-house-republicans-shutdown-deadline/
House Republicans are feeling dejected as they prepare to kick yet another shutdown deadline down the road without securing major wins, an outcome some blame on their own dysfunction.
Once again, even though they have the House majority, Republicans will rely on dozens of Democrats to pass a three-month funding extension.
They can’t pass the bill with just GOP votes because of opposition from hard-line conservatives. And because they have to rely on House Democrats to move forward, they hold zero leverage with the Democratic Senate.
Wednesday’s vote will be the final legislative action in the House before the election, and it will be symbolic of the disputes that have dogged the House GOP conference over the last 21 months. It has contributed to a pair of Speaker fights, multiple embarrassing failed votes on the floor and infighting that has spilled into the public view.
“If you’ve been here more than like, a year, it’s all the same thing over and over again,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus...
The time to take this story seriously is when one of Jenrick, Kemi, Cleverly or Tugendhat condemns Starmer and demands his resignation.
Can't see it happening, but we'll see,
This place has become utterly deranged.
Is Lord Alli his employer ? No. Next !
The use of Downing Street is counted as a BIK as per long standing practice.
What this amount is, I've no idea.
(Not sure why I turned this up, but it's been sitting in my browser for a few days.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie#/media/File:XB-70_AV-2_Palmdale_1966.jpg
They should have made the usual "no plans" statement and then scrapped the triple lock and linked to earning/inflation/whatever they can get away with.
The state pension needs to be viable going forward.
But not liable to income tax, as it's a gift.
Been on the lemo earlier than usual ?
Lab 1.96 most seats looks reasonable value but 4.5 years is a long time in politics.
I think some poor deals were struck, some have undoubtedly got away with murder, but I don't believe individual ministers profitted. If you have evidence of criminality perhaps report it to the authorities? I believe a new one will be along soon.
Sunak’s use of helicopters was about the use of public money to pay for (some of) it. There was a Guardian article criticising Sunak for taking a donation from Frank Hester for a helicopter ride, but the Guardian is not Labour and the concern there was specifically around Hester.
What was Truss’s photographer? Wasn’t that also about the spending of public money?
1. It’s fun and it makes a change
2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it
3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
Did Ballsy declare it?
We are facing an organised axis of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Deal with Russia and Iran and therefore isolate China.
"The state will take back control of people’s lives, says Starmer"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/24/state-will-take-back-control-of-peoples-lives-says-starmer/
ETA: Just noticed that I made up the losses on that with winning bets on Con seat numbers (banded) which I'd forgotten about but placed late after the market was flagged up on here. So thank you, whoever put me on to that.
And this works both ways, naturally
They lose votes at Conference all the time – it's usually just a way of letting the left of the party have their say.
Triple locking the personal allowance to the pension is a great idea, just make sure you've got Janet Street Porter in a soundproof cell before the announcement.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/25/michael-gove-appointed-editor-spectator/ (£££)
If only pb had an inside man!!
Which is fair. But you can't really criticise a man for having.... hope
I do not believe that members of the government profited from this.
I recall an air of desperation, when even our dearest friends, the French, stole PPE that was en route to the UK. I recall Labour screaming about suppliers that the government hadn't considered (but turned out to be rubbish).
Time will tell.
Costs him very little, but benefits the charity.
But what is the true value? The cost to him or the benefit to the recipient? Or neither?
I haven't got time to wade through the whole thread.
Gone!
K-E-I-R.
Didn't seem to do him much harm.
Although as Owen Jones, and indeed John Curtice point out, Lab won with the votes of 17.5% of British adults. So they aren't universally loved, even if that is the electoral system we know and love.
Let's hear the arguments then
Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
By 2072 estimates are that it would cost more than 20% of GDP, and we would need to double income tax to pay for it.
It's a just a matter of time before it has to go & if we had grown up politicians (on both sides), they would admit it.
I - honestly - cannot. I would have to look it up
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Boris Johnson committed an unambiguous breach of the rules when he failed to get permission from the ministerial appointments watchdog before taking a job as a Daily Mail columnist, which has led to calls for reform of the “good chaps” system.
The former prime minister was unveiled as a writer for the newspaper earlier this month, but he only told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) half an hour before the appointment was made public.
Do they matter? Well, much less than they once did.
I'd love someone to ask the hacks what they got on expenses and 'in kind' last year.
Would be a good laugh reading that.
You can't say that about any other journal