The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
Labour are in the mire when Starmer has lost lifelong Labour voter Taz. It's end of days mate!
Waiting for your next flounce, mate. It won't be long.
I supported labour at the last election and, unlike Cpt Cash, have voted for them at Every General Election I have voted in but I do not support them like I support my soccer team.
Just to cheer you up I'll jump when I'm ready. I have enjoyed the discomfort the last 24 hours have brought to those PB Tories who assumed Cleverly was a shoo-in and the future. All bets are on Badenoch now, although in a couple of weeks Jenrick might be the answer. It's a funny old game Saint!
P.S. I don't think there are as many on here with red scarves tied quite as tightly around the neck as there are blue ones. I couldn't care less who wins the next election so long as it's not any cabal of right wing headbangers.
As I said before, I don't mind either way if you stay or go (and I would say that about anyone) but, you know, it is not Heathrow Airport and departures don't need announcing.
You volunteered another flounce on my behalf. I was simply responding (reasonably) politely to your post.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
In government is very different and Starmer has similarities to Sunak in his political antennae
I am disappointed in him, not that I expected a new Blair, but I really did not see the sleeze, freebies and cronyism coming at all nor do I suspect to most anyone else
He has made serious mistakes. They are disappointing, but it’s early days and he was written off before. To call him hopeless at politics is absurd given what he has already achieved.
I do respect you acknowledging mistakes have been made and it all adds up to a volatile unpredictable future for everyone involved in politics and of course he could recover but equally he may have sustained reputational damage that will be hard to shift
Time and events will tell but anyone who thinks they know the outcome of the next GE are either wish casting or do not see how rapidly change is happening both here and across the world
I completely agree that anyone who claims to know the result of the next election is a fool. Almost any outcome is possible.
It is utterly bizarre that anyone could deny that Starmer made an error of judgement taking things like free glasses. What on Earth was he thinking? Bizarre. I know you’re busy Keir, but you can pay for your own glasses.
It is equally obvious that he has incurred political damage from this. It’s especially bad in the context of the winter fuel allowance.
Where I deviate from Internet hyperbole and chit chat from opponents is that the election is five years hence and the consequences are trivial compared to the outcome of economic performance and the success of other reforms and “events”.
I'd say that's fair. If the government can ride through this bumpy patch and go on to deliver an economy that continues to outperform our counterparts in Europe, so that individual Britons' material circumstances improve, while delivering quality of life improvements for the British people - like, say, improving the provision of housing, improvements to infrastructure, improvements to public services, reduction in crime, and so on - or some vaguely positive on-balance assessment of all that ... well then they will be justifiably reelected. And this will be seen as so much froth.
Some on the left are taking a position - understandable, given their political philosophy - that all this is a given from a left-wing government, so of course what is happening now is froth. Similarly, some on the right are taking the opposite view - that naturally a left-wing government will fail to do this, so we hardly consider its possibility.
The need for left-wing politicians for Taylor Swift tickets and so on is a little venal, and quite funny. So it gets picked up on. But I'd say most right-wing critics of Labour are rather more concerned about things like measures which result in high-taxpaying individuals leaving the country. We can argue about that too, but it's not as much fun.
FWIW, I can hear my mother-in-law in the next room talking politics. She isn't talking about Labour's economic decision-making. She's talking about Angela Rayner's '£1200' New Year's holiday.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
You suggest that "redecorating No 10" "wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing". I would remind you that the Electoral Commission concluded that the Conservative Party had failed to follow the law in not accurately reporting donations around "wallpapergate" and issued a £17,800. Ergo, that was definitely wrongdoing.
Starmer has recently been told off for late reporting of a donation, but no punishment or fine.
These are clearly very different responses, representing very different levels of error.
The thing that most obviously comes to mind is that they have to deal with complaints about complaints when the energy companies rip people off. I could imagine that absorbing a thousand people's working lives with some ease.
Oh my. So they're are two separate quangos to do with the energy market? Special.
So what do the 1,160 people at OfGem do?
Attend meetings, write documents, review documents, make presentations, increase awareness. They work very hard and an independent review will show that more employees are required to do it.
OVO Electricity Ltd, OVO (S) Gas Ltd, and OVO Gas Ltd have agreed to pay a total of £2.37 million in compensation and redress payments after Ofgem identified a number of failings in how the supplier handled customer complaints.
The regulator identified that 1,395 OVO customers were affected by issues including lengthy delays in addressing complaints, in some cases up to 18 months, and delays actioning the Energy Ombudsman’s decision when complaints were progressed.
OVO will pay £378,512 in compensation directly to affected customers and has also paid an additional £2 million to the Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Scheme in recognition of the severity of consumer detriment caused.
Affected customers will be contacted directly by OVO, and do not need to take any action.
Following Ofgem’s intervention OVO has increased its complaint handling resources, enhanced its complaints management system and improved its case management processes to make sure senior colleagues have oversight of complaints.
Energy suppliers and other stakeholders have committed to working together to replace 800,000 Radio Teleswitch (RTS) meters across the United Kingdom before the service is switched off next summer.
The agreement follows a summit, organised by the energy regulator Ofgem, gathering suppliers and stakeholders including Energy UK and Citizens Advice to find a joint solution to the challenge of migrating households from the ageing technology before the service ends on 30 June 2025.
The RTS system, which uses long wave radio signals to tell some electricity meters to switch between on and off-peak, is no longer viable and without a meter upgrade some affected homes, schools and businesses could be left without heating and hot water, or unable to turn off their heating.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
You suggest that "redecorating No 10" "wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing". I would remind you that the Electoral Commission concluded that the Conservative Party had failed to follow the law in not accurately reporting donations around "wallpapergate" and issued a £17,800. Ergo, that was definitely wrongdoing.
Starmer has recently been told off for late reporting of a donation, but no punishment or fine.
These are clearly very different responses, representing very different levels of error.
If not obvious, there should be the word "fine" after "£17,800"!
My wife and I went by train to Aberystwyth via Shrewsbury this week and the amount of surface water on the fields was quite worrying, not least for the sheep and some horses were actually standing in the water
Another noticeable feature was the poor state of a lot of housing maybe reflecting the lack of opportunities in parts of Mid Wales
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
In government is very different and Starmer has similarities to Sunak in his political antennae
I am disappointed in him, not that I expected a new Blair, but I really did not see the sleeze, freebies and cronyism coming at all nor do I suspect to most anyone else
He has made serious mistakes. They are disappointing, but it’s early days and he was written off before. To call him hopeless at politics is absurd given what he has already achieved.
I do respect you acknowledging mistakes have been made and it all adds up to a volatile unpredictable future for everyone involved in politics and of course he could recover but equally he may have sustained reputational damage that will be hard to shift
Time and events will tell but anyone who thinks they know the outcome of the next GE are either wish casting or do not see how rapidly change is happening both here and across the world
I completely agree that anyone who claims to know the result of the next election is a fool. Almost any outcome is possible.
It is utterly bizarre that anyone could deny that Starmer made an error of judgement taking things like free glasses. What on Earth was he thinking? Bizarre. I know you’re busy Keir, but you can pay for your own glasses.
It is equally obvious that he has incurred political damage from this. It’s especially bad in the context of the winter fuel allowance.
Where I deviate from Internet hyperbole and chit chat from opponents is that the election is five years hence and the consequences are trivial compared to the outcome of economic performance and the success of other reforms and “events”.
Agree and also I don't think it's massive whataboutery to contrast the industrial scale corruption of the previous government with the sleazy acceptance of gifts so far from this government. I mean associates of the Conservative Party stole £15 billion from you and me in corrupt Covid contracts.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
Is Luís Montenegro the only leader of a European country that is named after another European country?
(France once had a leader called France)
I think our head of state used to go by the name of Charles Wales? I must admit I don't fully understand the names royalty give themselves and under what circumstances, so this may be all wrong.
The Cleverly shambles reminds me of a chat I had recently with a high Tory figure who said British Conservatism was still too in thrall to “easy charm” and the appearance of intelligence to achieve anything, when what it really needs is a ruthless machine politician who can count
Is Luís Montenegro the only leader of a European country that is named after another European country?
(France once had a leader called France)
I think our head of state used to go by the name of Charles Wales? I must admit I don't fully understand the names royalty give themselves and under what circumstances, so this may be all wrong.
Is Luís Montenegro the only leader of a European country that is named after another European country?
(France once had a leader called France)
I think our head of state used to go by the name of Charles Wales? I must admit I don't fully understand the names royalty give themselves and under what circumstances, so this may be all wrong.
Just informally, I think more of a nickname to make use of their senior titles when needing for surname purposes. Queen Elizabeth II used to call George V Grampa England, which seems apt when looking at a picture of him.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
A LAW student who called Arsenal and England ace Bukayo Saka a “monkey” has dodged a jail term after insisting he was not being racist.
Westminster magistrates chair Kieran O’Donnell told Ali: “Your lawyer said your intention was not to be racist, but whoever heard it would have heard racial abuse.
“But you are of previous good character.”
"You have no previous convictions. You are remorseful"
Hopefully Arsenal give him a lifetime ban from the Emirates.
I'm (sort of) aware of a case where a member of nursery staff called a child of African (at last in part) extraction 'a little monkey' due to his misbehaving. The mother heard the remark and complained to the management, demanding the member of staff's racialism.
I rather doubt this individual was being nice about Saka in light of a 1-0 defeat at Nottingham Forest.
Apparently he included an audio message on Twatter - “fing b***k piece of s**t”
Not sure how you say that without intending to be racist....
Also used the N word, apparently. And I don't mean 'numpty'.
Interestingly the defendant himself is black. Which is not to suggest it's any more acceptable, but it is interesting that he referenced Saka's ethnic group in this way.
Dave Chapelle would argue that the N-word merely means ‘person’, when expressed by a person of ‘color’.
Dave Chapelle: "I just gotta know one thing. You didn't mean that "dirty n***** crack head" shit, did you?" John Malkovich: "Give me that gun." [takes the gun] "Hell, yes, I meant it!"
I know in Ireland that spring planting was late because a wet spring made ploughing impossible. But I also think that September is normally peak harvest season.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
Is Luís Montenegro the only leader of a European country that is named after another European country?
(France once had a leader called France)
I think our head of state used to go by the name of Charles Wales? I must admit I don't fully understand the names royalty give themselves and under what circumstances, so this may be all wrong.
I don’t count royalty as leaders in any case. They just sit on their lazy backsides and ruminate about jewels.
Winter wheat is a new one on me! But of all the things I claim an understanding of, farming is a long way down the list. Interesting.
It's an interesting biological phenomenon (because it needs a period of cold winter weather to work) and allows an additional crop in places where the summer growing season is too short for two crops, like the UK.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
I guessed you'd rise to the bait.
We're doing snooker puns, not fishing puns.
I was hoping you'd follow my cue.
I'm now casting around for one which covers both, but baulked at the effort involved.
Winter wheat is a new one on me! But of all the things I claim an understanding of, farming is a long way down the list. Interesting.
It's an interesting biological phenomenon (because it needs a period of cold winter weather to work) and allows an additional crop in places where the summer growing season is too short for two crops, like the UK.
er, non. It is simply related to when the crop is sown or drilled. Winter wheat and winter barley is drilled in autumn or winter and is harvested in summer. Spring wheat or spring barley is drilled in spring and is harvested later in harvest than its winter drilled equivalents. There is nowhere in the UK that has an additional crop of wheat or barley to my knowledge , though double season cropping of vegetables does take place in the fens I believe
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
Nope. I keep reading words like “venal” and “corrupt” in relation to Labour MPs, without a scintilla of evidence they have been influenced by Lord Alli. If they weren’t politicians the posters (and Mike) would be at risk of libel.
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
I guessed you'd rise to the bait.
We're doing snooker puns, not fishing puns.
I was hoping you'd follow my cue.
I'm now casting around for one which covers both, but baulked at the effort involved.
Have to chalk that one up as a defeat, I'm afraid.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
Nope. I keep reading words like “venal” and “corrupt” in relation to Labour MPs, without a scintilla of evidence they have been influenced by Lord Alli. If they weren’t politicians the posters (and Mike) would be at risk of libel.
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
The fact is that they should not be, any of them. With Starmer it is also the scale of the gifts and the vulgar lavishness of his acceptance of them. The fact that you cannot see it makes you as pathetic as the worst apologist fanbois of Boris Johnson. "My party leader right or wrong" is your attitude. You are the Labour Party supporter equivalent of HYUFD. In fact, I think you are a Labour Party bot or Kier Starmer's mum.
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
Nope. I keep reading words like “venal” and “corrupt” in relation to Labour MPs, without a scintilla of evidence they have been influenced by Lord Alli. If they weren’t politicians the posters (and Mike) would be at risk of libel.
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
The fact is that they should not be, any of them. With Starmer it is also the scale of the gifts and the vulgar lavishness of his acceptance of them. The fact that you cannot see it makes you as pathetic as the worst apologist fanbois of Boris Johnson. "My party leader right or wrong" is your attitude. You are the Labour Party supporter equivalent of HYUFD. In fact, I think you are a Labour Party bot or Kier Starmer's mum.
Nope. Boris was guilty of wrongdoing. Barring a late declaration - which he himself addressed before the media interest - Sir Keir has not been.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
I guessed you'd rise to the bait.
We're doing snooker puns, not fishing puns.
I was hoping you'd follow my cue.
I'm now casting around for one which covers both, but baulked at the effort involved.
Have to chalk that one up as a defeat, I'm afraid.
You framed that one very well, so well that I took it in hook line and sinker.
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
Indeed, myriad ideas are floated and discussed ahead of financial statements. Rachel is a bright spark, as you say. Let’s wait to see the Budget.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
It could be worse - they could have picked an anonymous back-biting malevolent turd like this briefer.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
Nope. I keep reading words like “venal” and “corrupt” in relation to Labour MPs, without a scintilla of evidence they have been influenced by Lord Alli. If they weren’t politicians the posters (and Mike) would be at risk of libel.
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
The fact is that they should not be, any of them. With Starmer it is also the scale of the gifts and the vulgar lavishness of his acceptance of them. The fact that you cannot see it makes you as pathetic as the worst apologist fanbois of Boris Johnson. "My party leader right or wrong" is your attitude. You are the Labour Party supporter equivalent of HYUFD. In fact, I think you are a Labour Party bot or Kier Starmer's mum.
Nope. Boris was guilty of wrongdoing. Barring a late declaration - which he himself addressed before the media interest - Sir Keir has not been.
And it’s Keir - K-E-I-R. Learn to spell.
Sorry fanbois, Sir "Kier" is a nasty boring little hypocrite who I am sure is so pure that he is not influenced let alone now in the well tailored pocket of a donor who I am sure has given him and his wife lavish gifts out of the goodness of his heart.
It must be an interesting feeling to be so in love with a politician that you cannot question their motives. You are to KIER what MAGA fanatics are to Trump. SAD as the latter might say!
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
Indeed, myriad ideas are floated and discussed ahead of financial statements. Rachel is a bright spark, as you say. Let’s wait to see the Budget.
She’s the weakest link in this government. Starmer would do well to rotate her out in the new year.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
Sorry, again – I'm not talking about "public opinion", or what some hypocritical hack on 'Sky News' said, or what you read on 'PB'. I'm talking about facts.
I ask again, can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Take your time.
It’s very simple.
Lord Alli has created a web of obligations among his colleagues based on his generosity. That is wrong.
In the financial services sector, for example, financial gifts to colleagues are banned. Why should it be acceptable (not “within the rules”) in politics?
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
I am not convinced that will stop them.
The way the Guardian is reporting it (describing it as "disarray" and linking to the July HMRC report suggesting it will cost 2bn, like the Chancellor is the last person in the UK who hasn't read it) strongly suggests Reeves is wedded to the idea for ideological reasons, and an anonymous civil servant at the Treasury is quietly doing a Sir Humphrey - "if you insist on doing this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way".
Labour busily shitting the bed on tax, then re-shitting it
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Guardian is reporting that Reeves is considering a CGT of 33-39%, despite the fact that HMRC have published estimates that a 10 percentage point raise in CGT would lead to a loss of £2bn a year to the exchequer.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
The point isn't to raise more revenue, it's to punish the rich.
Same with VAT on Private school fees.
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
Indeed, myriad ideas are floated and discussed ahead of financial statements. Rachel is a bright spark, as you say. Let’s wait to see the Budget.
She’s the weakest link in this government. Starmer would do well to rotate her out in the new year.
The right-wing media are making a bit of an ass of themselves over Starmer and his uncle.
Yes, some of the resultant memes are funny. But saying 'torpedoed' rather than 'bombed' is an easy misspeak to make. It's hardly major in the context, and I wouldn't classify it as a lie. His uncle served, and was on a ship that suffered damage in battle.
Starmer is having a bit of an unfortunate run of misspeaking, calling Sunak PM repeatedly, releasing the sausages...
So what?
Just saying he has is an unfortunate run where he has a number of gaffes in short succession. You are very defensive.
I noticed at PMQs yesterday he fell into the trap of demanding an answer to 'his' question which when Sunak did that previously the Speaker reminded him it is PMs questions !!
As for 'so what' or 'who cares' or 172 seat majority just indicates an attempt to close down the uncomfortable truth that Starmer's first 100 days has descended into freebies, cronyism and a terrible civil war in no 10 reflecting in approval poll ratings even below Sunak
Starmer was elected on his undertaking for change and a new way of doing politics, which has disappointed many including myself as I thought he would at least be true to his word but ultimely all he has been is the same as the rest sadly
Change the record.
Thats the other one I forgot !!!!!
Who are you voting for in the Tory leadership contest?
I am not a member
Who are you supporting?
Badenoch as I have always been very anti Jenrick
I fear for the nation's pearls!!!
Total gifts and donations to Kemi in 24/25 was £274,655 according to ChatGPT – you will surely be happy to check its working?
Graham Edwards: £12,000 Charles Keymer: £10,000 + £40,000 = £50,000 Robert West: £1,855 Shaya Raymond: £5,000 + £5,000 = £10,000 (in-kind donations) Neil Record: £10,000 Dean Richmond: £5,000 David Eventhall: £10,000 Caroline O'Kane: £5,000 David Watson: £10,000 James Mellon: £10,000 Dominic Brisby: £10,000 Martin Bellamy: £5,000 James Emslie: £10,000 Alison Frost: £5,000 Dambisa Moyo: £10,000 Douglas Shaw: £20,000
Andrew Scott: £10,000 Growth Financial Services: £10,000 David Naylor Leyland: £10,000 John Goodall: £5,000 John Edward James: £10,000 Roger Brookhouse: £5,000 Quentin Marshall: £5,000 Charles Morgan: £5,000 Jingle Bell Ball (free tickets): £800
Those look like donations to her office. Which are fine. Do you have more detail?
Well as I have now said multiple times on here, this is not some secret dossier, but the REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS which is in the pubic domain and takes about three seconds to google. I mean, we all guessed that PB Tories like G hadn't even bothered to look at it – preferring instead to get their 'information' from Guido Fawkes, the man on the internet.
You completely miss the point
As explained in @Taz at 1.36 it is the hypocrisy that is Starmers problem
You also have a weird idea that everyone opposed to Starmer is a right wing Tory when in my case nothing could be further from the truth
I am a one nation conservatives and I post widely from across the media including Sky, Guardian, Times and others but you will not see a post from me from GB news
Your problem is you seem to be in denial just how badly Starmer has been received by the public in his first 100 days and maybe accepting that would be cathartic
Can you point me to the part where Sir Keir said MPs shouldn't accept declared gifts? Whenever you are ready...
Pointless argument going round in circles
Look at public opinion on Starmer and his first 100 days and now honestly state that the freebies and cronyism on display from him and his colleagues has not damaged his reputation
OF course Starmer deliberately did not make such a specific commitment as is being demanded. However it still does not mean he is not a hypocrite or guilty of doing one thing and saying another.
Hang on, we've just established that he hasn't said another. Okay, I mean, he might have said another, down the pub, or in the kitchen when rustling up tandoori salmon. But nobody has managed to find a quote.
What is your point when your leader is tanking in the polls and sits below Farage and as @HYUFD has just said whichever conservative is elected would have higher approval ratings than Starmer
Ah, the crutch of 'public opinion' – a favourite of yours. I note you haven't engaged with the substantive point... again.
Funny old world.
There is no substantive point other than some weird idea that you are trying to justify Starmer with and cannot accept what is obvious to everyone Starmer is hopeless at politics
He’s done pretty well for someone hopeless at politics. Most politicians would love to be that hopeless. He has to defeat a number of people to get where he got to today.
The interesting question is what happens next. Government is different to opposition.
You can make a similar argument for Sunak - he became PM while being actively shit at politics.
The rather sterile debate on PB about whether Starmer is a hypocrite or not is getting very tedious. Part of his appeal while leader of the opposition was based on hammering the wrong doing of the Tories, even when said wrong doing wasn't necessarily actually wrong doing (such as redecorating No 10 etc). he excoriated repeatedly over partygate, yet was rather close to the rules for his own affairs with curry and beer. The image was of someone playing by the rules, being honest and upfront.
And arguably, no rules have been broken by the donations of a rich man to multiple Labour MP's. It is, however, the perception that is the problem. The perception is that he is a grasping, money grubbing lawyer, never quite breaking the rules but stretching them oh so thin. And I don't think we have had the real truth about the house borrowing.
So Anabob can keep saying - "show me where he did this, or that or the other" and Big G can point to opinion polling and never the twain will meet.
And we can all skip gloriously past those posts...
Nope. I keep reading words like “venal” and “corrupt” in relation to Labour MPs, without a scintilla of evidence they have been influenced by Lord Alli. If they weren’t politicians the posters (and Mike) would be at risk of libel.
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
The fact is that they should not be, any of them. With Starmer it is also the scale of the gifts and the vulgar lavishness of his acceptance of them. The fact that you cannot see it makes you as pathetic as the worst apologist fanbois of Boris Johnson. "My party leader right or wrong" is your attitude. You are the Labour Party supporter equivalent of HYUFD. In fact, I think you are a Labour Party bot or Kier Starmer's mum.
Nope. Boris was guilty of wrongdoing. Barring a late declaration - which he himself addressed before the media interest - Sir Keir has not been.
And it’s Keir - K-E-I-R. Learn to spell.
Sorry fanbois, Sir "Kier" is a nasty boring little hypocrite who I am sure is so pure that he is not influenced let alone now in the well tailored pocket of a donor who I am sure has given him and his wife lavish gifts out of the goodness of his heart.
It must be an interesting feeling to be so in love with a politician that you cannot question their motives. You are to KIER what MAGA fanatics are to Trump. SAD as the latter might say!
Seeing the video of the Big Z arriving at No. 10, I wonder how much Larry the Cat paid the Labour Party for its unrestricted pass to the building...
I misread that and thought it was about me !!!
Should have gone to specsavers !!
No need. If you ask Lord Alii nicely he might furnish you with a new pair. He's very generous when it comes to glasses.
I pay for my own glasses (and clothes and football tickets) and do not need freebies to buy my favour
I'm guessing you're not interested in free tickets to see Ms Swift either ?
Taylor doesn't suit him?
I haven't worn a suit since I retired in 2009
I wore one to my grandson's wedding four (I think, Mrs C will know) years ago. Otherwise I've been to a few funerals. Increasingly often nowadays, and I can't tie my tie properly.
Comments
Some on the left are taking a position - understandable, given their political philosophy - that all this is a given from a left-wing government, so of course what is happening now is froth. Similarly, some on the right are taking the opposite view - that naturally a left-wing government will fail to do this, so we hardly consider its possibility.
The need for left-wing politicians for Taylor Swift tickets and so on is a little venal, and quite funny. So it gets picked up on. But I'd say most right-wing critics of Labour are rather more concerned about things like measures which result in high-taxpaying individuals leaving the country. We can argue about that too, but it's not as much fun.
FWIW, I can hear my mother-in-law in the next room talking politics. She isn't talking about Labour's economic decision-making. She's talking about Angela Rayner's '£1200' New Year's holiday.
Starmer has recently been told off for late reporting of a donation, but no punishment or fine.
These are clearly very different responses, representing very different levels of error.
Whichever way you look at it.
Rachel Reeves considers raising capital gains tax to 39%
Exclusive: Rates of 33% to 39% being tested as Treasury source says tax-raising plans are in ‘complete disarray’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/rachel-reeves-capital-gains-tax-rise-budget
OVO Electricity Ltd, OVO (S) Gas Ltd, and OVO Gas Ltd have agreed to pay a total of £2.37 million in compensation and redress payments after Ofgem identified a number of failings in how the supplier handled customer complaints.
The regulator identified that 1,395 OVO customers were affected by issues including lengthy delays in addressing complaints, in some cases up to 18 months, and delays actioning the Energy Ombudsman’s decision when complaints were progressed.
OVO will pay £378,512 in compensation directly to affected customers and has also paid an additional £2 million to the Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Scheme in recognition of the severity of consumer detriment caused.
Affected customers will be contacted directly by OVO, and do not need to take any action.
Following Ofgem’s intervention OVO has increased its complaint handling resources, enhanced its complaints management system and improved its case management processes to make sure senior colleagues have oversight of complaints.
3 Oct 2024: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/energy-sector-taskforce-unites-tackle-radio-teleswitch-challenge
Energy suppliers and other stakeholders have committed to working together to replace 800,000 Radio Teleswitch (RTS) meters across the United Kingdom before the service is switched off next summer.
The agreement follows a summit, organised by the energy regulator Ofgem, gathering suppliers and stakeholders including Energy UK and Citizens Advice to find a joint solution to the challenge of migrating households from the ageing technology before the service ends on 30 June 2025.
The RTS system, which uses long wave radio signals to tell some electricity meters to switch between on and off-peak, is no longer viable and without a meter upgrade some affected homes, schools and businesses could be left without heating and hot water, or unable to turn off their heating.
Wheat haul in England estimated to be down by 21%, with Britain’s wine producers also hit hard
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/10/harvest-in-england-the-second-worst-on-record-because-of-wet-weather
State , Party , Decimal , Probability
Arizona , Republicans , 1.400 , 0.714
Arizona , Democrats , 2.750 , 0.364
Wisconsin , Democrats , 1.125 , 0.889
Wisconsin , Republicans , 2.250 , 0.444
Georgia , Republicans , 1.444 , 0.692
Georgia , Democrats , 2.625 , 0.381
Michigan , Democrats , 1.125 , 0.889
Michigan , Republicans , 2.200 , 0.455
Alabama , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Alabama , Democrats , 13.000 , 0.077
Alaska , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Alaska , Democrats , 10.000 , 0.100
Arkansas , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Arkansas , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
California , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
California , Republicans , 15.000 , 0.067
Colorado , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
Colorado , Republicans , 9.000 , 0.111
Connecticut , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Connecticut , Republicans , 15.000 , 0.067
Delaware , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Delaware , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
Florida , Republicans , 1.083 , 0.923
Florida , Democrats , 7.000 , 0.143
Hawaii , Democrats , 1.005 , 0.995
Hawaii , Republicans , 21.000 , 0.048
Idaho , Republicans , 1.005 , 0.995
Idaho , Democrats , 21.000 , 0.048
Illinois , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Illinois , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
Indiana , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Indiana , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Iowa , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Iowa , Democrats , 13.000 , 0.077
Kansas , Democrats , 21.000 , 0.048
Kentucky , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Kentucky , Democrats , 15.000 , 0.067
Louisiana , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Louisiana , Democrats , 15.000 , 0.067
Maine , Democrats , 1.083 , 0.923
Maine , Republicans , 7.000 , 0.143
Maryland , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Maryland , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
Massachusetts , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Massachusetts , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
Minnesota , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
Minnesota , Republicans , 8.000 , 0.125
Mississippi , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Mississippi , Democrats , 11.000 , 0.091
Missouri , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Missouri , Democrats , 13.000 , 0.077
Montana , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Montana , Democrats , 15.000 , 0.067
Nebraska , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Nebraska , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Nevada , Democrats , 1.800 , 0.556
Nevada , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
New Hampshire , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
New Hampshire , Republicans , 7.000 , 0.143
New Jersey , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
New Jersey , Republicans , 13.000 , 0.077
New Mexico , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
New Mexico , Republicans , 7.000 , 0.143
New York , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
New York , Republicans , 13.000 , 0.077
North Carolina , Republicans , 1.125 , 0.889
North Carolina , Democrats , 2.250 , 0.444
North Dakota , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
North Dakota , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Ohio , Republicans , 2.000 , 0.500
Ohio , Democrats , 11.000 , 0.091
Oklahoma , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Oklahoma , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Oregon , Democrats , 2.000 , 0.500
Oregon , Republicans , 13.000 , 0.077
Pennsylvania , Republicans , 1.833 , 0.545
Pennsylvania , Democrats , 1.909 , 0.524
Rhode Island , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Rhode Island , Republicans , 15.000 , 0.067
South Carolina , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
South Carolina , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
South Dakota , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
South Dakota , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Tennessee , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Tennessee , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Texas , Republicans , 1.083 , 0.923
Texas , Democrats , 7.500 , 0.133
Utah , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Utah , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Vermont , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Vermont , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
Virginia , Democrats , 1.100 , 0.909
Virginia , Republicans , 6.000 , 0.167
Washington , Democrats , 1.010 , 0.990
Washington , Republicans , 17.000 , 0.059
West Virginia , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
West Virginia , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
Wyoming , Republicans , 1.010 , 0.990
Wyoming , Democrats , 17.000 , 0.059
TEXAS: Cruz 48%, Allred 44% 🔴
MONTANA: Sheehy 52%, Tester 44% 🔴
FLORIDA: Scott 49%, Mucarsel-Powell 40% 🔴
Another noticeable feature was the poor state of a lot of housing maybe reflecting the lack of opportunities in parts of Mid Wales
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-actual-and-anomaly-maps
(In the snooker)
One Nation Tory group refuses to back Badenoch or Jenrick in party leadership race
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/10/centrist-conservatives-refuse-back-badenoch-jenrick-tory-reform-group-leadership-candidates-party-right
..One MP said they had been dismayed by the final two candidates, from whom party members will now select a winner in a postal ballot, with the result to be announced on 2 November.
“The sound you can hear in the background is the barrel being scraped,” they said. “We have a choice of an ECHR one-trick pony, who believes our special forces murder people, and an anti-woke one-trick pony who picks endless fights. As a choice, it’s shit...
Because they’ve already scared off so many rich people they can’t do non doms. But hiking CGT will frighten off more rich people and investors etc
And so the doom loop tightens
Meanwhile the telegraph reports one reason they have a massive fiscal void is because of extreme immigration levels pressuring public services
It’s like a machine about to explode
The Cleverly shambles reminds me of a chat I had recently with a high Tory figure who said British Conservatism was still too in thrall to “easy charm” and the appearance of intelligence to achieve anything, when what it really needs is a ruthless machine politician who can count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat
President Hollande springs to mind.
Bad news for Sandpit, rents in Dubai are about to skyrocket...
John Malkovich: "Give me that gun." [takes the gun] "Hell, yes, I meant it!"
Of course, today’s flavour of the month Kemi is neither venal nor corrupt despite accepting nearly £300k in donations in the last tax year alone.
(FWIW, I don’t think she is corrupt - politicians of all parties can and do accept and declare gifts and have done since the year dot)
However, let’s not jump the gun. It is merely a couple of things being considered
Reeves isn’t stupid. She apparently has already discounted some measures due to them being politically desirable but not effective.
And it’s Keir - K-E-I-R. Learn to spell.
It must be an interesting feeling to be so in love with a politician that you cannot question their motives. You are to KIER what MAGA fanatics are to Trump. SAD as the latter might say!
NEW THREAD
Lord Alli has created a web of obligations among his colleagues based on his generosity. That is wrong.
In the financial services sector, for example, financial gifts to colleagues are banned. Why should it be acceptable (not “within the rules”) in politics?
Otherwise I've been to a few funerals. Increasingly often nowadays, and I can't tie my tie properly.