Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Americans have issues – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196
    "Trump senses British weakness: Keir Starmer will never hold the reins of power"
    Tom McTague, Unherd (I know, I know)
    October 24, 2024 5 mins

    https://archive.is/T18fH
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,670

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    That's exactly what @Mexicanpete and @Anabobazina think
    Are you talking to me? I had no interest in Mrs Truss's necklace and what it represented. The only poster who had a seriously unhealthy interest was Leon. Now Johnson was a wholly different matter because of his sexually incontinent backstory. His antics might have been hilarious to his political opponents but the stories would have been heartbreaking for Marina and his children.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760

    The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc)
    Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.

    As ye sew,so shall ye reap.

    Sounds like a stitch-up to me.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,712
    viewcode said:

    "Trump senses British weakness: Keir Starmer will never hold the reins of power"
    Tom McTague, Unherd (I know, I know)
    October 24, 2024 5 mins

    https://archive.is/T18fH

    Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Trump's Hitler comments are forcing The History Channel to make some big changes
    https://x.com/TheDailyShow/status/1849255980632072461
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,690

    algarkirk said:

    This is awful of course but I don't believe murder is the right description for this tragic homicide

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/24/coventry-student-hid-baby-cereal-box-convicted-murder

    Wasn't there an old offence of Infanticide that went some way to recognising the mental fragility of new mothers?
    Yes. IIRC there still is.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    edited October 24
    "Donald Trump is wholly unfit to be President"

    Agree: 50%
    Disagree: 43%

    Neutral: 7%

    Big Village / Oct 23, 2024 / n=1592

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849551220114903239

    Not the greatest among pollsters, sadly.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196
    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,312
    edited October 24
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
    It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.

    To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.

    By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510
    edited October 24

    The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc)
    Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.

    As ye sew,so shall ye reap.

    That was disgusting. The unpleasant nonsense about Dorries was unforgivable. Why would I be comfortable with any of that?

    You are the ones saying Mrs Starmer should be humiliated but It is unacceptable ( which it is) for Conservative figures to be targeted.

    And don't forget the pig story was from Ashcroft 's book wasn't it?.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,308

    The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc)
    Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.

    As ye sew,so shall ye reap.

    Wasn't the revolting stuff about Cameron the product of Oakeshott, who isn't exactly on the left?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,889
    Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Trump senses British weakness: Keir Starmer will never hold the reins of power"
    Tom McTague, Unherd (I know, I know)
    October 24, 2024 5 mins

    https://archive.is/T18fH

    Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
    Sharing in leadership of the West. For example Starmer deferred to Biden on using British weapons against Russia. If that was his decision he should have been informing Biden, not asking permission.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196
    Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Trump senses British weakness: Keir Starmer will never hold the reins of power"
    Tom McTague, Unherd (I know, I know)
    October 24, 2024 5 mins

    https://archive.is/T18fH

    Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
    The last para

    "...The moral of this strange modern fable, then, is ultimately one of power. Keir Starmer is learning that no matter how nicely he plays, his government will be buffeted by the wider struggle for dominance currently playing out in the US — not just between Trump and Harris, but between the titans of Silicon Valley and the party establishments in Washington. These are battles with huge stakes, financially and politically, the winners of which will control the world’s most powerful country and the world’s most powerful industry. Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney are mere straws blowing in the wind. The Brits aren’t coming for America. The Americans have already taken Britain..."

    He means that in comparison with Musk and Trump, Starmer is a minnow who cannot influence things.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067
    Nigelb said:

    Is this expected ?

    More Republicans than Independents between 18-29 support imposing an arms embargo on Israel
    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849468399719502040

    They want all the guns for themselves.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747
    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    viewcode said:

    Elon Musk really has jumped the shark now. He’s retweeting far-right figures like JK Rowling.

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849242818767937571

    Point, counterpoint...
    https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes
    Musk's views, of course, have nothing to do with the fact that one of his own children is trans and has disowned him, nor the fact that Grimes left him for a trans woman...

    "I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,” said his daughter in the court filing when she legally changed her name.

    I couldn't even begin to speculate where the entire bag of chips on Musk's shoulder might stem from...

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    The reporting of indiscretions of the Major Government came about as a result of the moral crusade the Government embarked upon against, for example, unmarried teenage mothers in St Mellons, and it turned out some of the Cabinet were equally feral.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    I suggest you DYOR - I wouldn't dream of commenting.
    I've heard the accusations. Perhaps Guidio should repeat them and see where that takes him. If that story is true it is in the public interest, much like the Russian Violinist.The key of course is he has made a dirty mac hatchet job insinuation without placing himself in the cross hairs of litigation
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,670
    geoffw said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?

    You're joking, but for those who don't know, Mark Carney went hyper-partisan a couple of years ago, alledgedly in hopes of a place in Canadian politics. Even hardcore Remainers mocked him for his lies about the size of the UK economy after Brexit:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/11/brexit-damage-uk-economy-mark-carney
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,312
    geoffw said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?

    I don't think this, from 2021, bigs up or claims she was an economist at the HBOS, rather involved in developing the structure of mortgage lending at a point which was already quite late in the day before the crash:

    https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/what-rachel-reeves-learnt-from-witnessing-the-financial-crisis-unfold-in-halifax-3491160

    Another Tory torrent of fabricated bullshit.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747
    carnforth said:

    geoffw said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?

    You're joking, but for those who don't know, Mark Carney went hyper-partisan a couple of years ago, alledgedly in hopes of a place in Canadian politics. Even hardcore Remainers mocked him for his lies about the size of the UK economy after Brexit:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/11/brexit-damage-uk-economy-mark-carney
    Yes I was joking because the answer to my question is "no"

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,670
    Pro_Rata said:

    geoffw said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?

    I don't think this, from 2021, bigs up or claims she was an economist at the HBOS, rather involved in developing the structure of mortgage lending at a point which was already quite late in the day before the crash:

    https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/what-rachel-reeves-learnt-from-witnessing-the-financial-crisis-unfold-in-halifax-3491160

    Another Tory torrent of fabricated bullshit.
    "Her official biography, often shared at speaking engagements, proudly states that she “worked as an economist at the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington DC, and latterly at Halifax Bank of Scotland."

    The plain reading of that is economist in all three roles. Perhaps it was just poorly worded (do they have economists at embassies?).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,712
    Is cash still used a lot in Japan?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    TSMC’s early yields in Arizona have surpassed similar facilities in Taiwan by 4pp, a company exec said on a webinar yesterday

    The chipmaker would be interested in expanding its US investment, he said, depending in part on whether there’s a Chips Act 2.0

    https://x.com/mackhawk/status/1849547470029922578

    Trump, of course, boasted about such projects, but failed to actually bring any to fruition. Remember the Foxconn deal ?

    Donald Trump opposes U.S. funds for massive Phoenix chip factory, could scrap deal with Taiwan semiconductor giant if elected
    https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/10/17/donald-trump-tsmc-phoenix-factories-funding/

    Trump is an idiot, who believes his own ‘Art of the Deal’ bullshit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    kyf_100 said:

    viewcode said:

    Elon Musk really has jumped the shark now. He’s retweeting far-right figures like JK Rowling.

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849242818767937571

    Point, counterpoint...
    https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes
    Musk's views, of course, have nothing to do with the fact that one of his own children is trans and has disowned him, nor the fact that Grimes left him for a trans woman...

    "I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,” said his daughter in the court filing when she legally changed her name.

    I couldn't even begin to speculate where the entire bag of chips on Musk's shoulder might stem from...

    TSMC ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    Andy_JS said:

    Is cash still used a lot in Japan?

    A fair bit, but it’s clearly disappearing. Lots of contactless
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    edited October 24
    Pro_Rata said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
    It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.

    To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.

    By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
    lol. Defensive much?

    All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
  • Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,797

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,939

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    So he’s going to double down on the NI cuts so that they pay the same tax?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    Sounds like class war on savers

  • Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,670
    edited October 24
    Andy_JS said:

    Is cash still used a lot in Japan?

    Less than ten years ago, but still useful for the tourist. For vending machines, for ticket vending machines for restaurants, for some train systems and many bus systems outside major cities.

    (Buses have change making machines built in next to the fare machines, which is fun. You have to do it in two stages though: make change, then put it in the fare machine.)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,312
    edited October 24
    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
    It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.

    To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.

    By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
    lol. Defensive much?

    All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
    OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    I'm sure Sir Keir has plenty of monetary assets...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,889

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    Didn't his previous definition exclude anyone who can afford an unexpected bill?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    PB lefties having meltdowns, as Labour implode in office, is a peculiarly fun spectator sport
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963
    edited October 24

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    Didn't his previous definition exclude anyone who can afford an unexpected bill?
    Who can;t afford to pay a cheque.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,783
    edited October 24
    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    Sir Keir said he believed a working person was somebody who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque" but they did not have the ability to "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".

    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    Pressed on whether that meant taxes for those people could go up, the prime minister said: "You can probably give me any number of examples... you're asking me for a definition of who's a working person, and then you're making assumptions about what that tax might be in relation to."


    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
  • Sky news stapline

    Breaking news

    PM - People with assets are not working people
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    Didn't his previous definition exclude anyone who can afford an unexpected bill?
    so he excluded himself ...

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963
    Leon said:

    PB lefties having meltdowns, as Labour implode in office, is a peculiarly fun spectator sport

    We are all PB Lefties, Comrade.

    We both voted Labour!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,939

    Sky news stapline

    Breaking news

    PM - People with assets are not working people

    Does this include his father’s tool making equipment by any chance?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
    It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.

    To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.

    By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
    lol. Defensive much?

    All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
    OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
    It’s all out there but I’ve no desire to get PB into legal trouble of any kind
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    PBOnlinelinksintellektuellenwahlverliererpanikbeobachtungsfreude
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694
    edited October 24
    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    So if you've got more than a month or two's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510
    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
    Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.

    As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,797
    edited October 24

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
  • Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
    I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person

    What an insult to millions of people
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510
    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?

    This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty

    It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
    Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
    It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.

    To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.

    By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
    lol. Defensive much?

    All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
    OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
    It’s all out there but I’ve no desire to get PB into legal trouble of any kind
    If you are so confident let the Spectator lawyers do the heavy lifting.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694
    edited October 24
    geoffw said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    Didn't his previous definition exclude anyone who can afford an unexpected bill?
    so he excluded himself ...

    Only because he had Lord Alli to hand, it seems.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    edited October 24

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
    Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.

    As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
    Um, no

    Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,797

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,305
    maaarsh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    maaarsh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    maaarsh said:

    Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.

    Confident move!

    I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.

    More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
    So:

    When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength.
    And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.

    Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.

    We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.

    And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.

    We don't know.

    What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
    I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.

    Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
    Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.

    Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
    Do we have comparisons to prior elections - if that's a shift from 2020, or 2016 if we want to avoid COVID impacts would indeed be notable.
    The answer is... not really.

    In 2020, Georgia was mostly postal.

    This time, Georgia is not a postal vote election. Only about 10% of early voting is postals. On the contrary, it's early in person (with ID) voting. Basically, it's not so much election day, as election two and a half weeks.

    Now, my personal view is that Democrats *need* to be ahead, because historically Georgia has had an issue that on election day there are massively long queues to vote, particularly in areas where there are few polling stations and lots of voters. (Like *cough* Atlanta.)

    This means the incentive to vote early is highest in urban areas where Democrats are strong.

    Overall turnout so far in Georgia is 32%. In Fulton, the Democrat's strongest county with around 10% of the State's total population (and where Biden won by 46 percentage points in 2020), it's 35%. In the rural constituencies, which are strongest for Trump, it's mostly in the low 20s.

    This is particularly important - of course - because historically those urban counties have younger electorates and lower turnout. In Fulton, we've already seen well over half the number of votes case as in 2020.

    There's similar quite positive news in the gender split. Georgia split 54:46 female to male in 2020. Early voting is 56:44. Small numbers, but given how much more likely women are to vote Democrat, that's something that would make me quite happy if I were Harris.

    Now, it is entirely possible that if we were to look at the breakdown by affiliation then the numbers would not be so positive. But from a cursory - top down - look, they look pretty good for Harris.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,797

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
    Watch the full clip on the link above. He's talking about people who derive their incomes from shares and property, and that's what Sky have quoted in their article.

    This is the RAF/Belgrano thing all over again.
  • I expect that alcohol drinking people won't be working people either

    I, and many millions more, will hate these puritan bastards if they do jack up the price of booze too much
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,309
    edited October 24
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747
    Well done Sir Kier!
    You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
    Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.

    As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
    Um, no

    Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
    You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,846

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
    I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person

    What an insult to millions of people
    It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.

    It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
  • Starmer getting in more of a muddle over what is a working person than what is a woman.

    And some are trying to vainly defend him

  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,070
    edited October 24
    geoffw said:

    Well done Sir Kier!
    You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal

    I have 3 of those but I certainly don’t “derive my income from assets”.

    To derive your income from assets you need a hell of a lot of assets.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
    I get the horrible feeling I am smarter than anyone in the Labour government. This is not boasting, the feeling is deeply troubling - as I know how much I get WRONG
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771
    edited October 24

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
    Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.

    As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
    Um, no

    Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
    You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
    Plenty were interested - they DM’d me*

    *By this I don’t mean “dommed”. Heaven forfend
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
    You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    geoffw said:

    Well done Sir Kier!
    You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal

    Since Brexit Labour are a middle class party, the ISA/SIPP wealth is a big factor in their new core vote.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,070
    Here’s Rachel Reeves’ CV per Wikipedia:

    Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10]
    Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
    You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
    If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694
    edited October 24
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Re: Chess

    I can only see 4 games on Chessbase:
    https://players.chessbase.com/en/player/Reeves_Rachel/685806

    Lost to a 2040, Beat a 1720

    That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).

    [Though it isn't terrible for 'girls' chess at the time]
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,889
    This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?

    https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1848677356824596937

    Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.

    She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".

    Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,893
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
  • This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?

    https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1848677356824596937

    Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.

    She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".

    Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.

    Wes Streeting has also come out against
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat : people whose only income comes from their labour
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie : people whose income comes from their ownership of capital

    Technically SKS was correct

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963



    She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".

    Has she told Hamas?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Re: Chess

    I can only see 4 games on Chessbase:
    https://players.chessbase.com/en/player/Reeves_Rachel/685806

    Lost to a 2040, Beat a 1720

    That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
    Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,309
    edited October 24

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
    That is just how Beth Rigby is everybody. Shout lots of questions and follows up with "so what you are saying Prime Minister'. She was the same with Boris and Sunak. Lots of heat generated, never much light.

    No wonder Adam Boulton lost his temper at her.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963
    TimS said:

    Here’s Rachel Reeves’ CV per Wikipedia:

    Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10]
    Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]

    What is footnote [11]?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,308
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
    I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person

    What an insult to millions of people
    It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.

    It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
    But if people on the right don't clutch their pearls, Reeves will come and steal them to give to undeserving public sector shirkers.

    It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.

    And as for the allegations, if only someone had been able to stand them up before the election. Isn't that what the attack units of political parties are meant to do?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196
    geoffw said:

    Well done Sir Kier!
    You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal

    You can';t include "owning a house" as capital, as you can't sell it and live off the income. But if you rent out a room(s), that's different.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?

    https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1848677356824596937

    Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.

    She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".

    Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.

    Wes Streeting has also come out against
    I thought "Streeting ha(d) come out" a while ago.🤣
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
    You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
    If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
    No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,308

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
    That is just how Beth Rigby is everybody. Shout lots of questions and follows up with "so what you are saying Prime Minister'. She was the same with Boris and Sunak. No wonder Adam Boulton lost his temper at her.
    And some people here who now hang on her every word used to condemn her for that.

    Funny old world.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854
    viewcode said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat : people whose only income comes from their labour
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie : people whose income comes from their ownership of capital

    Technically SKS was correct

    This is the best form of correct. (assuming it has no negative effects on me)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,510
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT

    Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
    Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.

    As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
    Um, no

    Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
    You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
    Plenty were interested - they DM’d me*

    *By this I don’t mean “dommed”. Heaven forfend
    You've really tied yourself up in knots over Truss's necklace.🤣
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    He just said it live to Beth Rigby
    Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview

    There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
    So they are misquoting him?
    No
    You are being very mischievous misquoting Starmer in order to wind up those posters who want to be wound up into a frenzy.
    If you doubt Sky and Rigby's account then take it up with them
    No you have misinterpreted Sky's narrative.
    I very much doubt the public will
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,771

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Starmer live on Sky

    People with assets are not working people

    What's the odds for he didn't say that?
    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521

    So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
    I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person

    What an insult to millions of people
    It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.

    It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
    But if people on the right don't clutch their pearls, Reeves will come and steal them to give to undeserving public sector shirkers.

    It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.

    And as for the allegations, if only someone had been able to stand them up before the election. Isn't that what the attack units of political parties are meant to do?
    “It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.”


    It’s called “a change of government”. Often happens after elections
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694
    edited October 24
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Re: Chess

    I can only see 4 games on Chessbase:
    https://players.chessbase.com/en/player/Reeves_Rachel/685806

    Lost to a 2040, Beat a 1720

    That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
    Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
    There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.

    There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.

    But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,747

    TimS said:

    Here’s Rachel Reeves’ CV per Wikipedia:

    Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10]
    Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]

    What is footnote [11]?
    Probably Wiki explaining that the Bank of England is the British central bank

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,577

    viewcode said:

    Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.

    Confident move!

    What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody... :(:(:(
    Senate race presumably?
    Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
    It is possible a differential turnout could flip
    Texas. The Senate seat is very much in play.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854
    geoffw said:

    Well done Sir Kier!
    You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal

    Aren't Arsenal tickets free though? That's what my SPAD told me. I couldn't read the ticket through my ill-fitting thousand-pound glasses, sadly.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,557
    edited October 24

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    I suggest you DYOR - I wouldn't dream of commenting.
    I've heard the accusations. Perhaps Guidio should repeat them and see where that takes him. If that story is true it is in the public interest, much like the Russian Violinist.The key of course is he has made a dirty mac hatchet job insinuation without placing himself in the cross hairs of litigation
    So you are quite happy, indeed rather smug, about a situation whereby a blogger cannot legally reveal a potential story (if there is a story) about the Prime Minister that you acknowledge would be in the public interest. You aren't annoyed at the censorship, just annoyed that its chilling effect hasn't been chilling enough to achieve a total trappist silence.

    YET, stories about Boris's sex life are totally legitimate because Boris is so dreadful.

    I don’t think the word hypocrisy quite covers it does it?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,822
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
    I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
    What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
    Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":

    https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/

    "This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
    "Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."

    If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
    I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
    Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?

    Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ

    Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
    I get the horrible feeling I am smarter than anyone in the Labour government. This is not boasting, the feeling is deeply troubling - as I know how much I get WRONG
    Don't worry, you're not.
This discussion has been closed.