It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
This seems a strange report. I don't think 5 days is enough to find out whether a claimed "theft from my bank account" is fraud or not.
It will open up new opportunities for fraud based around aflse claims of having had money removed. Removing all responsibility from someone who clicked on a phishing email and gave out their numbers could blow up the FSCS.
Potentially this is in the "tragedy of the commons" category.
UK banks must refund fraud victims up to £85,000 within five days under new rules.
Most High Street banks and payment companies voluntarily compensate customers who are tricked into sending money to scammers.
But in a world first, these refunds will become mandatory from 7 October, the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) has announced.
The watchdog has reduced the maximum compensation from a previous proposal of £415,000. It said the new cap of £85,000 would cover more than 99% of claims.
It also announced that once a bank or payment company had refunded a customer, it could claim half back from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the stolen money. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy94vz4zd7zo
Interesting.
The ITV national news presented it as the watchdog going easy on the banks because the cap,was reduced.
If people are stupid enough to be tricked into sending money to scammers especially to the point of deceiving bank staff why should they get a penny back ?
I go part way with you but not all the way, We have come from a place where banks denied all responsibility whilst the system was insecure, and businesses forced customers to use bank transfer because it was cheap for them and saved costs for eg Debit or Credit cards, whilst the customer was left with no protection.
The bank transfer system was then made more secure through checking the recipient account name.
To me this feels like a hasty badly thought out overcorrection, and attempt to force responsibility onto banks in a way which undermines inherent security of the system by making followup so immediate as to break the opportunity for investigation. It is made worse because this is in practice not treated as a crime. It's in the right direction, but goes too far. It's a choice not to address the core issue. The customer loses incentive to take care. One alternative would be compensation at 80% for losses over 10k, for example.
I've been looking at this whole thing because of my new phone, and do I want a scrote who steals and ahcks my phone to have access to anything financial, and if so what. I think I may be back to either no finances on the phone, or have an account just for day to day with little money and no overdraft to quarantine it - just as I used to have a low limit credit card for online use.
I'd perhaps draw a parallel how the cost of insurance protection for houses at flood risk has been smeared across the whole population. We know when houses are built in flood zones, and those moving in to them know what they are doing. Perhaps those should be treated like non-standard construction ... houses which have a value 20-50% less.
Not addressing the underlying question is a cultural issue imo - eg rehabilitation of inmates, use of PSPOs designed to be very difficult to impose rather than sensible policies around youth, any amount of things around road safety, and lots of others.
I think he's a gonner. I really do. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
You think he’s going to resign? What price do you make that?
I don’t know. I make it an even chance. It seems to be becoming apparent that Lord Ali's flat is Starmers second (first?) home. That indicates that the reality of Starmer's life is not the one he has attempted to portray. I don't see it as at all possible that the full facts will not be disclosed at this point. And I don’t see how that doesn't lead to either a completely lame zombie PM, or a resignation.
The optics from so many angles are SO bad
Remember Starmer is so principled that he wouldn't let any of his family members use private medicine
OK, but, er, he's happy to take £20,000 worth of WC2 penthouse for his son to privately study, even as he makes private schools non-charitable so ordinary people pay more of their own money; even as he stares at them in disapproval through his free £3k glasses
I think he's a gonner. I really do. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
And in doing so, you get Farage, or Corbyn, or whoever it is that burns with a bright but ill light?
For the time being Starmer is fine.
I don’t know - I'm not willing this to happen. I don’t like Starmer but nor do I like a country with no semblance of a competent Government.
I suspect SKS will be replaced by another Labourite - we can hardly have another GE.
Any leader is going to be chased by the press until chasing by the press stops being the issue.
I vaguely recall a time when the press had a role beyond continual attempted destabilisation of the realm.
This sort of comment is depressing. If politicians do not want the media to go after them, then they shouldn't do stupid stuff that - at best - looks dodgy.
Were you calling it 'destabilisation of the realm' when parts of the media were after Boris? Or Truss? Or Sunak?
If their sales tank after all Nelson's years of hard work...
I find the presumption that Nelson wanted to keep on going forever a bit odd - feels like a very natural exit point for him and I haven't seen anything obvious to suggest it's on bad terms.
It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
If their sales tank after all Nelson's years of hard work...
I find the presumption that Nelson wanted to keep on going forever a bit odd - feels like a very natural exit point for him and I haven't seen anything obvious to suggest it's on bad terms.
Yes, indeed. Fifteen years is an incredibly long time to be an editor, almost unheard of
If their sales tank after all Nelson's years of hard work...
I find the presumption that Nelson wanted to keep on going forever a bit odd - feels like a very natural exit point for him and I haven't seen anything obvious to suggest it's on bad terms.
Yes, indeed. Fifteen years is an incredibly long time to be an editor, almost unheard of
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
Maths.
Mathematics
I always think that people who say "math" are those who can't count as far as two, to get the word right .
The Harris - Walz garden posters have at least and at last started going up around Asheville.
"Yard signs" in our quaint colonial lingo. Same here around Seattle & environs.
PS - You & your little dog too, keep an ear & eye out for weather news. Hurricane Helene is a serious storm, getting ready to slam into the Florida Panhandle then may (emphasis on conditional) be headed your general direction. Danger on Gulf Coast is wind & storm surge; further inland rain & flooding.
Yes, there’s a severe weather warning out for the mountains here this afternoon and tomorrow, the conjunction of the incoming hurricane with its moist warm air and a stationary front over the mountains is suggested ”has the potential to be an extremely rare event with significant and damaging flash-flooding along numerous streams”.
I have had pretty much uninterrupted heatwave for a month; now the weather is turning sh*t. The rain starts in half an hour’s time.
I think he's a gonner. I really do. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
You think he’s going to resign? What price do you make that?
I don’t know. I make it an even chance. It seems to be becoming apparent that Lord Ali's flat is Starmers second (first?) home. That indicates that the reality of Starmer's life is not the one he has attempted to portray. I don't see it as at all possible that the full facts will not be disclosed at this point. And I don’t see how that doesn't lead to either a completely lame zombie PM, or a resignation.
The optics from so many angles are SO bad
Remember Starmer is so principled that he wouldn't let any of his family members use private medicine
OK, but, er, he's happy to take £20,000 worth of WC2 penthouse for his son to privately study, even as he makes private schools non-charitable so ordinary people pay more of their own money; even as he stares at them in disapproval through his free £3k glasses
He has *hypocrite* encoded in his DNA
The spin team he has hired are quite shit aren't they. PM, the press are asking about the use of Lord Alli's flat, lets tell them all about how your son studied there as needed somewhere private to study. OK. Don't check the dates they give line up with GCSE's and Mr country over party / money is also has a policy of bashing private schools. Brings more questions than answers, so more attention to use of the flat....
PM, you seem to have done several public video statements from there when it was WFH mandated....
This all came about because his initial response was I will take whatever donations I want within the rules, I will continue to take donations for suits / glasses.
I somehow don't think Malcolm Tucker Bad Al would have handled it like that.
If their sales tank after all Nelson's years of hard work...
I find the presumption that Nelson wanted to keep on going forever a bit odd - feels like a very natural exit point for him and I haven't seen anything obvious to suggest it's on bad terms.
Yes, indeed. Fifteen years is an incredibly long time to be an editor, almost unheard of
Good point. Quit while you were ahead etc.
Hopefully he will still be writing and comments on TV. Always struck me as a thoughtful person.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
Welcome back!
Nice to have a different perspective - perhaps you're right and it'll blow over. We shall see.
It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
Maths.
Mathematics
I always think that people who say "math" are those who can't count as far as two, to get the word right .
It's just an Americanism I think. Admittedly it's an American prize, but they have won the mathematical big one quite a lot.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
1) This was the correct response Starmer could have taken. Like Cameron over expenses. Instead he did the opposite, which made it worse, he argued like he was arguing in court that by the letter of the law, no rules were broken. Most expenses didn't break the rules either (this isn't as bad as expenses, although if it becomes more common that MPs regularly undercook the value of donations and lied about exact purpose, might get a bit tricky).
2) Well he got a pass and held a party there, and which nobody seems to be able to say for certain when he handed back. Secondly, it appears he had the person in charge of selection working in his office, which could be very convenient.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I don't know if Starmer is corrupt, probably not
But he and his cabinet have cemented themselves as hypocrites
I can't imagine a way for them to remove the same-sort-of-scroungers look that they've almost gleefully, and at least unapologetically, adopted
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
Charlotte Salomon @SalomonSoup · 2h Can’t see why you’d go as far as putting up family photos in someone else’s home unless you’re trying to deceive people.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
And Farage waits. Smiling
Starmer is the (im)perfect character to precede a hard right victory
I fear it might come in fiercer clothing than Farage's
Do we have any anti-Zionists here, ie people who don't want Israel to exist?
Or are we all two-state-solution Zionists?
If chanting From The River To The Sea is cool, you're anti-Zionist
I always worried that a two-state solution would effectively act as a way of formalizing apartheid. I didn't think Israel would allow an independent Palestinian state that could potentially be hostile to it to exist.
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
Every politician is a no mark or a nutter until they aren't.
What donations will he be defending in the next interview? Tune in next week for another thrilling installment.
One of his problems is he immediately gets defensive and prickly, and refuses to take questions, and that makes him look even guiltier, and he is completely devoid of charm, smarm or humour
Blair would have said Shucks, sorry, ah well, and smiled, and you'd warm to him anyway; Boris would have blustered then told a joke and distracted everyone (tho he ran out of jokes in the end)
This is at the BEGINNING of Starmer's premiership and he looks like an exhausted batsman who has been at the crease all day and is now wearily fending off the bowling
What's more, Beth Rigby didn't even ask him the obvious, punitive question: "Prime Minister, you say you claimed this flat for your son's GCSEs, but the dates don't match, those exams finished nearly a month before you handed the flat back. What did you really use the flat for?"
What is the mechanism by which this brings down the Prime Minister when freebies did not bring down Blair or Boris, and when it is almost impossible to depose a Labour leader even in Opposition?
And why are the Conservative leadership contenders not wading in even though mortally wounding the Prime Minister would ensure their victory?
Re your last paragraph why would they when the media are doing it for them
Mind you the party conference could be very interesting this weekend
It may be that Guido is fronting for CCHQ. Who else would have every Starmer broadcast saved and ready to compare with Alli's room dimensions?
He is. Guido is well known to be a Tory hack. He pretends to be Nige-curious just now to please his commentors, but he'll be putting the boot in there where and when possible too.
The point is whether Guido is biased, it's why has Starmer given him massive ammunition.
Putting a family photo up in a borrowed penthouse and pretending you're at home isn't normal. There is a bigger explanation, and a bigger story here, than freebies.
I believe I said as much - that this was all about the accommodation, some days ago.
If the son was living there for more than a month, council tax would be due, right? Even if there is no council tax on second homes in that borough.
Lord Alli would be paying council tax in case he stayed there no? There could even be live in staff.
"You’ll usually have to pay Council Tax on another property you own or rent, such as a holiday home. These properties are furnished and do not have anyone living in them as their main home. They are also known as ‘second homes’.
Your council can decide to give you a discount - it’s up to them how much you get. Contact your council to ask about a discount."
So was there a second home discount?
Your quote I think refers to the owner of the second home, not the occupant.
AFAICS the £20k value o benefit received is a notional figure not a cashflow, and no tenancy agreement transferring CT liability will exist - as a normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy is at least 6 months. If there is some sort of agreement, it would probably be a simple letter giving "Permission to Occupy" - which would not transfer CT liability.
When you go and stay in a house in Southwold for a month for your summer holidays, which this is far closer to, you are not liable for Council Tax.
I'm inclined to think of all of this as desperate shitslinging because the opponents to the new Govt currently have nothing substantive to say about anything.
My suggestion for the PM would be simply to refer the whole thing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I am struggling to understand the charge of hypocrisy. Did Labour spend a lot of time attacking the Tories for accepting gifts?
If it is discovered they broke Covid regulations then sure I can understand hypocrisy but right now there seem to be allegations that SKS is corrupt and as corrupt as the Tories but right now with very little evidence.
There's also a vacuum as the Tories have basically become irrelevant until they get a new leader. Does anyone honestly believe they will elect somebody who has the ability to take down Labour at this stage? I can totally buy the argument they may be a one term government but we're literally months into the government, people wishcasting as opposed to looking at what is really going on.
Ultimately in my view if Labour makes any progress on either immigration or house building, then they will be re-elected.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Have any actual Tories, as opposed to their supporters, said anything significant on this?
Do we have any anti-Zionists here, ie people who don't want Israel to exist?
Or are we all two-state-solution Zionists?
If chanting From The River To The Sea is cool, you're anti-Zionist
I always worried that a two-state solution would effectively act as a way of formalizing apartheid. I didn't think Israel would allow an independent Palestinian state that could potentially be hostile to it to exist.
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
Muslims can live in Israel; Islamists must be excluded
I think that's a good rule for all non-Islamist countries
What PR specialist thought it was a great idea to respond to a query about the flat with a prickly (paraphrasing) “did you want my son to fail his GCSE’s!?” and to follow it up with a “Sky News hold a great party every year and you’d want me to keep going to it.”
I mean - WTF?
It’s nowhere near as bad as the Prince Andrew interview - but it has those same really incomprehensible moments where you question who the heck was coaching him.
Do we have any anti-Zionists here, ie people who don't want Israel to exist?
Or are we all two-state-solution Zionists?
If chanting From The River To The Sea is cool, you're anti-Zionist
I always worried that a two-state solution would effectively act as a way of formalizing apartheid. I didn't think Israel would allow an independent Palestinian state that could potentially be hostile to it to exist.
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
That's utopianism because it simply would not work, for the same reason that you think a two-state solution would not work. There is far too much hatred on both sides for them to peacefully coexist in a single state in that manner - and that's without the religious nutters.
Charlotte Salomon @SalomonSoup · 2h Can’t see why you’d go as far as putting up family photos in someone else’s home unless you’re trying to deceive people.
It's pretty obvious. He is being held sausage by the Labour party and had one chance of getting a coded message out to the outside world. The elegance of the deliberate slip is breathtaking.
Also do photos exist of him with lord Alli, before generative AI? Do the math, people.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I am struggling to understand the charge of hypocrisy. Did Labour spend a lot of time attacking the Tories for accepting gifts?
If it is discovered they broke Covid regulations then sure I can understand hypocrisy but right now there seem to be allegations that SKS is corrupt and as corrupt as the Tories but right now with very little evidence.
There's also a vacuum as the Tories have basically become irrelevant until they get a new leader. Does anyone honestly believe they will elect somebody who has the ability to take down Labour at this stage? I can totally buy the argument they may be a one term government but we're literally months into the government, people wishcasting as opposed to looking at what is really going on.
Ultimately in my view if Labour makes any progress on either immigration or house building, then they will be re-elected.
Starmer or Sue gave Alli a No10 pass. He held a Downing Street garden party. He was given unparalleled access with absolutely no accountability
He donated personally to the PM, his wife, and most of the Cabinet and their families
His man selected new Labour candidates
Can you imagine Starmer not recognising the stench of all this if he were still LotO?
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
And Farage waits. Smiling
As in Morten Morland's cartoon on the Spectator cover
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
And Farage waits. Smiling
The risk for Labour is that they find themselves caught in a pincer moment where the red wall collapses to Reform and the Tories make enough of a modest recovery to win back some of the blue wall/small town marginals.
That probably results in a hideously hung parliament.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Have any actual Tories, as opposed to their supporters, said anything significant on this?
Badeonch defended the practice, while trying to walk the Labour hypocricy line:
As the child of a much lower-ranking politician, she has a point. I think it was Bill Clinton talking about Chelsea who said "if I win, she loses". Though it may have been someone else.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Speaker Mike Johnson is calling on President Zelenskyy to “immediately” fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the US for arranging the Ukrainian president's visit to the “politically contested battleground” Pennsylvania
Starmer also faced questions on Wednesday after the Guido Fawkes website reported that he appeared to have used Alli’s flat as a backdrop to a video he released during the Covid pandemic in late December 2021. At the time, employees had been advised to work from home if possible.
No 10 said Starmer was completely confident he had broken no rules when in Alli’s flat. The clip was recorded for work purposes and it is understood he was only using the flat as a one-off.
Well that excuse fell apart pretty quickly. And it appears he again forgot to declare the donations. If he was my lawyer I would be very worried what other paperwork he had screwed up.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
It’s the nature of access and influence that you can’t easily see it. We know that Alli had a Downing Street pass. There no evidence of corruption, as yet, but perceptions are important as is putting yourself in a position where you feel obligated.
And just because something isn’t banned it doesn’t mean that you *should* do it. Taking these gifts was wrong.
Do we have any anti-Zionists here, ie people who don't want Israel to exist?
Or are we all two-state-solution Zionists?
If chanting From The River To The Sea is cool, you're anti-Zionist
I always worried that a two-state solution would effectively act as a way of formalizing apartheid. I didn't think Israel would allow an independent Palestinian state that could potentially be hostile to it to exist.
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
Muslims can live in Israel; Islamists must be excluded
I think that's a good rule for all non-Islamist countries
I would not try to make windows into people's souls. But certainly Islamism is not compatible with the civil-rights based country I encourage, and one aspect of the utopianism involves Islamist politicians making very little headway.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Have any actual Tories, as opposed to their supporters, said anything significant on this?
I'm surprised that they have not yet gone for the Home Secretary on the basis of her pre-2010 expenses management. But that might trigger thoughts of moats, hundreds of trees in MP's gardens, and duck houses, all of which they certified as 'essential for my role as MP' expenses.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
And Farage waits. Smiling
Starmer is the (im)perfect character to precede a hard right victory
I fear it might come in fiercer clothing than Farage's
It speaks well of our national character that Farage is our right wing ideologue.
Speaker Mike Johnson is calling on President Zelenskyy to “immediately” fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the US for arranging the Ukrainian president's visit to the “politically contested battleground” Pennsylvania
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
He does understand that this shit-talking is only going to push votes one way within the significant - half a million - Haitian population in Florida? Which is now only Trump by 1%?
Starmer also faced questions on Wednesday after the Guido Fawkes website reported that he appeared to have used Alli’s flat as a backdrop to a video he released during the Covid pandemic in late December 2021. At the time, employees had been advised to work from home if possible.
No 10 said Starmer was completely confident he had broken no rules when in Alli’s flat. The clip was recorded for work purposes and it is understood he was only using the flat as a one-off.
Well that excuse fell apart pretty quickly. And it appears he again forgot to declare the donations. If he was my lawyer I would be very worried what other paperwork he had screwed up.
And he added family photos so it would look like his real home
Bang to rights. No getting around it
Should probably resign? Will probably tough it out but is now desperately hobbled
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Worried about a crack down on personal service companies.....look how mental they went when Hammond decided to try and tax that group some more. It was ends of days stuff just because those people (well me at the time) were going to get stung for another £500 in NI.
Also remember when Brown went after the £100k a year people, Polly Nosepeg and co were outraged, blustering about your need to go after the proper rich people.
Do we have any anti-Zionists here, ie people who don't want Israel to exist?
Or are we all two-state-solution Zionists?
If chanting From The River To The Sea is cool, you're anti-Zionist
I always worried that a two-state solution would effectively act as a way of formalizing apartheid. I didn't think Israel would allow an independent Palestinian state that could potentially be hostile to it to exist.
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
That's utopianism because it simply would not work, for the same reason that you think a two-state solution would not work. There is far too much hatred on both sides for them to peacefully coexist in a single state in that manner - and that's without the religious nutters.
It would turn out to be Lebanon on acid.
Everything is impossible until it happens.
I don't see a more practical end-state. The two-state solution certainly isn't.
We're only going to end up with something different to the status quo if someone makes the status quo impossible - but at the moment the only movement away from the status quo is towards Greater Israel.
Could Greater Israel end up being a stepping stone towards my utopian end-state? I'd hope there would be a less harrowing path, but I don't see any route to one.
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I genuinely think you are overthinking it.
Attacking each other all the time is just what the left does. Especially when in government, because having won an election implies that the winner has sold out.
It's one of the reasons why, for all the apparent evidence to the contrary, my instinctive home is on the wet right, not the soft left.
Do politicians and others who assure us on radio etc that "I'm being honest" or "he's being honest" realise that the audience hears that as saying they're not normally honest?
If you have this bloke who's gay, and this other bloke who spends lots of time including all nighters at the first bloke's flat, there's one, heavily odds-on explanation for this. Very heavily odds on. Can anyone guess what it is yet?
Unrelated fun fact, Oscar Wilde was a married man. With two kids.
If you have this bloke who's gay, and this other bloke who spends lots of time including all nighters at the first bloke's flat, there's one, heavily odds-on explanation for this. Very heavily odds on. Can anyone guess what it is yet?
Unrelated fun fact, Oscar Wilde was a married man. With two kids.
#justsaying
If you are on the DL you don’t tend to do public broadcasts from his place.
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Or potentially they've known Keir is risky for a long time and want him briskly dispatched now the majority is in the bag, for someone with less issues?
It seems unlikely though. I suggest they're just doing a bit of journalism now that there's no immediate risk of a Tory Government being elected.
I think he's a gonner. I really do. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
You think he’s going to resign? What price do you make that?
I don’t know. I make it an even chance. It seems to be becoming apparent that Lord Ali's flat is Starmers second (first?) home. That indicates that the reality of Starmer's life is not the one he has attempted to portray. I don't see it as at all possible that the full facts will not be disclosed at this point. And I don’t see how that doesn't lead to either a completely lame zombie PM, or a resignation.
The optics from so many angles are SO bad
Remember Starmer is so principled that he wouldn't let any of his family members use private medicine
OK, but, er, he's happy to take £20,000 worth of WC2 penthouse for his son to privately study, even as he makes private schools non-charitable so ordinary people pay more of their own money; even as he stares at them in disapproval through his free £3k glasses
He has *hypocrite* encoded in his DNA
The spin team he has hired are quite shit aren't they. PM, the press are asking about the use of Lord Alli's flat, lets tell them all about how your son studied there as needed somewhere private to study. OK. Don't check the dates they give line up with GCSE's and Mr country over party / money is also has a policy of bashing private schools. Brings more questions than answers, so more attention to use of the flat....
PM, you seem to have done several public video statements from there when it was WFH mandated....
This all came about because his initial response was I will take whatever donations I want within the rules, I will continue to take donations for suits / glasses.
I somehow don't think Malcolm Tucker Bad Al would have handled it like that.
I had expected to be disappointed, eventually, by the new government. But they're really speeding headlong into it.
If you have this bloke who's gay, and this other bloke who spends lots of time including all nighters at the first bloke's flat, there's one, heavily odds-on explanation for this. Very heavily odds on. Can anyone guess what it is yet?
Unrelated fun fact, Oscar Wilde was a married man. With two kids.
#justsaying
If you are on the DL you don’t tend to do public broadcasts from his place.
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Or they are really going to hammer the top income decile on pensions, CGT, complicated stuff around self-employment (which will catch lots of top media types).
Perhaps even some of the anti-corruption stuff, ironically. He's betraying the establishment so we'll take him down with us.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I am struggling to understand the charge of hypocrisy. Did Labour spend a lot of time attacking the Tories for accepting gifts?
If it is discovered they broke Covid regulations then sure I can understand hypocrisy but right now there seem to be allegations that SKS is corrupt and as corrupt as the Tories but right now with very little evidence.
There's also a vacuum as the Tories have basically become irrelevant until they get a new leader. Does anyone honestly believe they will elect somebody who has the ability to take down Labour at this stage? I can totally buy the argument they may be a one term government but we're literally months into the government, people wishcasting as opposed to looking at what is really going on.
Ultimately in my view if Labour makes any progress on either immigration or house building, then they will be re-elected.
Starmer or Sue gave Alli a No10 pass. He held a Downing Street garden party. He was given unparalleled access with absolutely no accountability
He donated personally to the PM, his wife, and most of the Cabinet and their families
His man selected new Labour candidates
Can you imagine Starmer not recognising the stench of all this if he were still LotO?
And of course, Lord Alli gave £10k to the constituency party of Sue Grey's son. He only made two donations to constituency Labour parties.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
Speaker Mike Johnson is calling on President Zelenskyy to “immediately” fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the US for arranging the Ukrainian president's visit to the “politically contested battleground” Pennsylvania
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
It’s the nature of access and influence that you can’t easily see it. We know that Alli had a Downing Street pass. There no evidence of corruption, as yet, but perceptions are important as is putting yourself in a position where you feel obligated.
And just because something isn’t banned it doesn’t mean that you *should* do it. Taking these gifts was wrong.
The 'within the rules' line is reminding me of the expenses scandal. And I don't think that's exactly a great thing to be reminded of.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I am struggling to understand the charge of hypocrisy. Did Labour spend a lot of time attacking the Tories for accepting gifts?
If it is discovered they broke Covid regulations then sure I can understand hypocrisy but right now there seem to be allegations that SKS is corrupt and as corrupt as the Tories but right now with very little evidence.
There's also a vacuum as the Tories have basically become irrelevant until they get a new leader. Does anyone honestly believe they will elect somebody who has the ability to take down Labour at this stage? I can totally buy the argument they may be a one term government but we're literally months into the government, people wishcasting as opposed to looking at what is really going on.
Ultimately in my view if Labour makes any progress on either immigration or house building, then they will be re-elected.
Starmer or Sue gave Alli a No10 pass. He held a Downing Street garden party. He was given unparalleled access with absolutely no accountability
He donated personally to the PM, his wife, and most of the Cabinet and their families
His man selected new Labour candidates
Can you imagine Starmer not recognising the stench of all this if he were still LotO?
And of course, Lord Alli gave £10k to the constituency party of Sue Grey's son. He only made two donations to constituency Labour parties.
I think he's a gonner. I really do. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
You think he’s going to resign? What price do you make that?
I don’t know. I make it an even chance. It seems to be becoming apparent that Lord Ali's flat is Starmers second (first?) home. That indicates that the reality of Starmer's life is not the one he has attempted to portray. I don't see it as at all possible that the full facts will not be disclosed at this point. And I don’t see how that doesn't lead to either a completely lame zombie PM, or a resignation.
The optics from so many angles are SO bad
Remember Starmer is so principled that he wouldn't let any of his family members use private medicine
OK, but, er, he's happy to take £20,000 worth of WC2 penthouse for his son to privately study, even as he makes private schools non-charitable so ordinary people pay more of their own money; even as he stares at them in disapproval through his free £3k glasses
He has *hypocrite* encoded in his DNA
The spin team he has hired are quite shit aren't they. PM, the press are asking about the use of Lord Alli's flat, lets tell them all about how your son studied there as needed somewhere private to study. OK. Don't check the dates they give line up with GCSE's and Mr country over party / money is also has a policy of bashing private schools. Brings more questions than answers, so more attention to use of the flat....
PM, you seem to have done several public video statements from there when it was WFH mandated....
This all came about because his initial response was I will take whatever donations I want within the rules, I will continue to take donations for suits / glasses.
I somehow don't think Malcolm Tucker Bad Al would have handled it like that.
If you want to know what “Bad Al” thinks about all this…
Starmer also faced questions on Wednesday after the Guido Fawkes website reported that he appeared to have used Alli’s flat as a backdrop to a video he released during the Covid pandemic in late December 2021. At the time, employees had been advised to work from home if possible.
No 10 said Starmer was completely confident he had broken no rules when in Alli’s flat. The clip was recorded for work purposes and it is understood he was only using the flat as a one-off.
Well that excuse fell apart pretty quickly. And it appears he again forgot to declare the donations. If he was my lawyer I would be very worried what other paperwork he had screwed up.
And he added family photos so it would look like his real home
Bang to rights. No getting around it
Should probably resign? Will probably tough it out but is now desperately hobbled
On a clear night if you train a telescope correctly you can make out as a speck in the far far void the distant star of Earandel. Just adjacent to this, a little closer but not much, lies the resignation of Keir Starmer.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Not many "smarter Tories" on PB then.
We’re not fucking MPs you stupid dork
Gosh that's quite the response to a bit of banter.
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Or potentially they've known Keir is risky for a long time and want him briskly dispatched now the majority is in the bag, for someone with less issues?
It seems unlikely though. I suggest they're just doing a bit of journalism now that there's no immediate risk of a Tory Government being elected.
Just stopped working after a gentle 12 hour shift. Client work, Tesla YouTube work, some Google merchant settings faff and shooting a prototype video for my newish toys business (which needs to get social media up and running and needs content).
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Or potentially they've known Keir is risky for a long time and want him briskly dispatched now the majority is in the bag, for someone with less issues?
It seems unlikely though. I suggest they're just doing a bit of journalism now that there's no immediate risk of a Tory Government being elected.
Speaker Mike Johnson is calling on President Zelenskyy to “immediately” fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the US for arranging the Ukrainian president's visit to the “politically contested battleground” Pennsylvania
My only defence of Starmer - it’s not much, I can’t stand the bloke - is that this feels like a co-ordinated assassination. I go back to the repeated and weird attacks from the Guardian, who give him no succour at all - and are often the most vicious
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
I wonder if the gov is resisting something media-y - perhaps they've said no to a Channel 4 bailout?
Or potentially they've known Keir is risky for a long time and want him briskly dispatched now the majority is in the bag, for someone with less issues?
It seems unlikely though. I suggest they're just doing a bit of journalism now that there's no immediate risk of a Tory Government being elected.
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Yes and no.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
Not many "smarter Tories" on PB then.
We’re not fucking MPs you stupid dork
Gosh that's quite the response to a bit of banter.
You OK chicken?
Happity doody, just feeling quite feisty
Two gin and tonics into the evening, making a laksa (my favourite cook-at-home meal), arranging drinks with a friend tomorrow, got a function at the weekend, daughters doing OK at Uni and Ozzie A Levels, got travel next week to multiple interesting places
A good moment. And now Labour collapsing all over the shop and the PB lefties weeping and asking us not to "destabilise the realm"
lololol!
Yes. I'm in a good mood, in a sometimes dark world
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
It’s the nature of access and influence that you can’t easily see it. We know that Alli had a Downing Street pass. There no evidence of corruption, as yet, but perceptions are important as is putting yourself in a position where you feel obligated.
And just because something isn’t banned it doesn’t mean that you *should* do it. Taking these gifts was wrong.
The issue here is image and perception.
The interesting thing here to me, and what is telling, is how poorly the government has reacted to it. This is the sort of story that a strong government and PM should be able to bat aside.
The easiest way out was probably an “oops, yes, not our greatest look, we won’t be doing it anymore, let’s move on.”
The other way to do it would be to get the PM to fight it straight on. Either with a Blair/Cameron style “I’m actually a pretty straight kind of guy” disarming charm; or a “this is why I am right and you are wrong to make this an issue, there’s my justification, next question” Thatcher-style response.
I think the government ended up going with a mix of all these approaches and therefore completely messing it up. Starmer seemed to go for a “I haven’t done anything wrong but let me justify it” approach while simultaneously acknowledging why questions needed to be asked and just ended up sounding out of touch and prickly.
If you have this bloke who's gay, and this other bloke who spends lots of time including all nighters at the first bloke's flat, there's one, heavily odds-on explanation for this. Very heavily odds on. Can anyone guess what it is yet?
Unrelated fun fact, Oscar Wilde was a married man. With two kids.
#justsaying
Hide the sausa… oh I don’t even have the heart to finish that sentence
Somebody is free to correct me but so far everyone who says this is terminal for SKS are the same people that called for him to resign when he had a beer whilst he ate a curry. So their judgment is perhaps not totally impartial.
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
You are almost certainly right, but perhaps this is one of those many cases where the famous dictum “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” is not true. He will be weakened by it, even if only slightly.
Unless there is a smoking gun, like he has broken COVID rules, it will blow over, but his image of man of principle, country over party, I am not in this for personal enrichment is trashed. He is now in the pigsty with all the others, when his USP was I might be boring, but I am upstanding, you can trust me.
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
And Farage waits. Smiling
The risk for Labour is that they find themselves caught in a pincer moment where the red wall collapses to Reform and the Tories make enough of a modest recovery to win back some of the blue wall/small town marginals.
That probably results in a hideously hung parliament.
My feeling is that labour are going to be a one term government and at the next election they will be seen the same as the tories were last election. However I also expect the tories not to have recovered by the next election. I suspect a lot of voters going reform/green/libdem and the lab and con getting around 25% each.....will make for interesting times
Speaker Mike Johnson is calling on President Zelenskyy to “immediately” fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the US for arranging the Ukrainian president's visit to the “politically contested battleground” Pennsylvania
In my (first) home town in Western PA, one of the biggest church denominations is Ukrainian Orthodox. Plus plenty of Ukrainian Catholics, Ruthenian (Rusyn/Carpatho) Catholics & Orthodox. Similar situation other places in the Greater Pittsburgh orbit.
Note that most of these folks are grand/great-grandchildren of immigrants, whose forebearers were imported in first years of the 20th century prior to the Guns of August 1914, to work in the steelmills built across the region, and also in parts of eastern PA.
Thus today the great Keystone State has (the web alleges) the 3rd-largest number UKR-USers in the nation, behind much larger NY & CA.
Demographic of perhaps above-average psephological interest for 2024.
Comments
The bank transfer system was then made more secure through checking the recipient account name.
To me this feels like a hasty badly thought out overcorrection, and attempt to force responsibility onto banks in a way which undermines inherent security of the system by making followup so immediate as to break the opportunity for investigation. It is made worse because this is in practice not treated as a crime. It's in the right direction, but goes too far. It's a choice not to address the core issue. The customer loses incentive to take care. One alternative would be compensation at 80% for losses over 10k, for example.
I've been looking at this whole thing because of my new phone, and do I want a scrote who steals and ahcks my phone to have access to anything financial, and if so what. I think I may be back to either no finances on the phone, or have an account just for day to day with little money and no overdraft to quarantine it - just as I used to have a low limit credit card for online use.
I'd perhaps draw a parallel how the cost of insurance protection for houses at flood risk has been smeared across the whole population. We know when houses are built in flood zones, and those moving in to them know what they are doing. Perhaps those should be treated like non-standard construction ... houses which have a value 20-50% less.
Not addressing the underlying question is a cultural issue imo - eg rehabilitation of inmates, use of PSPOs designed to be very difficult to impose rather than sensible policies around youth, any amount of things around road safety, and lots of others.
Remember Starmer is so principled that he wouldn't let any of his family members use private medicine
OK, but, er, he's happy to take £20,000 worth of WC2 penthouse for his son to privately study, even as he makes private schools non-charitable so ordinary people pay more of their own money; even as he stares at them in disapproval through his free £3k glasses
He has *hypocrite* encoded in his DNA
If he’s reacting like this to relatively minor stuff now, imagine what it’s going to like when we get a really big issue.
Starmer 2024: “I don’t believe that my staff should be the subject of public debate like this, and I’m not going to play any part in it.”
I agree that the gifts do not look good but surely the solution is to legislate against MPs getting them altogether? The Tories are hardly innocent in this matter either.
What I am not quite understanding is that people are implying SKS is corrupt. But I can't see any evidence of that thus far. The majority of gifts seem to be from a long-term Labour donor and member and I can't see what influence they have bought beyond them supporting the Labour Party.
I predict that this issue will run for some time - but it's not fatal for SKS nor the government. The Tories are about to elect somebody totally irrelevant and who the public dislike. They are still prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt based on recent polls and that will all come down to delivery.
People forget that with Partygate it was that the government set rules and then didn't follow them. That isn't the case here as far as I can see. The rules themselves are what seem to stink.
I have had pretty much uninterrupted heatwave for a month; now the weather is turning sh*t. The rain starts in half an hour’s time.
PM, you seem to have done several public video statements from there when it was WFH mandated....
This all came about because his initial response was I will take whatever donations I want within the rules, I will continue to take donations for suits / glasses.
I somehow don't think
Malcolm TuckerBad Al would have handled it like that.Hopefully he will still be writing and comments on TV. Always struck me as a thoughtful person.
Nice to have a different perspective - perhaps you're right and it'll blow over. We shall see.
But still. 'Mathematics'
2) Well he got a pass and held a party there, and which nobody seems to be able to say for certain when he handed back. Secondly, it appears he had the person in charge of selection working in his office, which could be very convenient.
1. It makes people cry and @Mexicanpete will leave
And
2. It may “destabilise the realm”
But he and his cabinet have cemented themselves as hypocrites
I can't imagine a way for them to remove the same-sort-of-scroungers look that they've almost gleefully, and at least unapologetically, adopted
Luckily for him, the Tories will pick a no-mark or a nutter.
He won’t be taken seriously if he tries to make an issue of honesty and integrity
@SalomonSoup
·
2h
Can’t see why you’d go as far as putting up family photos in someone else’s home unless you’re trying to deceive people.
https://x.com/SalomonSoup/status/1838976087222522035
Cracking point.
If the endgame here is a tightening up of the rules on freebies for MPs, that will generally hurt the right more than the left (that's mostly where the money is) and the opposition more than the government (they need cash and perks more and aren't currently subject to ministerial codes.)
When the dust settles, it's what I'd recommend.
Which is why smarter Tories aren't going anywhere near the story. See Badenoch's response, and she'd normally be well up for a fight.
I fear it might come in fiercer clothing than Farage's
My brand of utopianism was a single state with full civil rights for all in what was the mandate of Palestine, perhaps with a similar sort of power-sharing arrangement as in Northern Ireland. Whether you called that state Israel or Palestine could perhaps be left for individual preference, in a similar way to the way Derry/Londonderry is named.
AFAICS the £20k value o benefit received is a notional figure not a cashflow, and no tenancy agreement transferring CT liability will exist - as a normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy is at least 6 months. If there is some sort of agreement, it would probably be a simple letter giving "Permission to Occupy" - which would not transfer CT liability.
When you go and stay in a house in Southwold for a month for your summer holidays, which this is far closer to, you are not liable for Council Tax.
I'm inclined to think of all of this as desperate shitslinging because the opponents to the new Govt currently have nothing substantive to say about anything.
My suggestion for the PM would be simply to refer the whole thing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
If it is discovered they broke Covid regulations then sure I can understand hypocrisy but right now there seem to be allegations that SKS is corrupt and as corrupt as the Tories but right now with very little evidence.
There's also a vacuum as the Tories have basically become irrelevant until they get a new leader. Does anyone honestly believe they will elect somebody who has the ability to take down Labour at this stage? I can totally buy the argument they may be a one term government but we're literally months into the government, people wishcasting as opposed to looking at what is really going on.
Ultimately in my view if Labour makes any progress on either immigration or house building, then they will be re-elected.
I think that's a good rule for all non-Islamist countries
I mean - WTF?
It’s nowhere near as bad as the Prince Andrew interview - but it has those same really incomprehensible moments where you question who the heck was coaching him.
This is a real tweet from a Republican Congressman. Unbelievable
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1839021460494434671/photo/1
It would turn out to be Lebanon on acid.
He donated personally to the PM, his wife, and most of the Cabinet and their families
His man selected new Labour candidates
Can you imagine Starmer not recognising the stench of all this if he were still LotO?
For some reason Skyr royale has deeply angered a bunch of people
That probably results in a hideously hung parliament.
https://news.sky.com/story/kemi-badenoch-defends-mps-taking-freebies-as-way-to-spend-time-with-family-13220838
As the child of a much lower-ranking politician, she has a point. I think it was Bill Clinton talking about Chelsea who said "if I win, she loses". Though it may have been someone else.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1839022809802014980
No 10 said Starmer was completely confident he had broken no rules when in Alli’s flat. The clip was recorded for work purposes and it is understood he was only using the flat as a one-off.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/25/keir-starmer-flat-labour-donor-waheed-alli-son-gcses
Well that excuse fell apart pretty quickly. And it appears he again forgot to declare the donations. If he was my lawyer I would be very worried what other paperwork he had screwed up.
And just because something isn’t banned it doesn’t mean that you *should* do it. Taking these gifts was wrong.
Bang to rights. No getting around it
Should probably resign? Will probably tough it out but is now desperately hobbled
Jenrick is the wrong choice. He was the wrong choice. He will be the wrong choice.
That has an absolute value of 1. There is no “increasingly”
Also remember when Brown went after the £100k a year people, Polly Nosepeg and co were outraged, blustering about your need to go after the proper rich people.
I don't see a more practical end-state. The two-state solution certainly isn't.
We're only going to end up with something different to the status quo if someone makes the status quo impossible - but at the moment the only movement away from the status quo is towards Greater Israel.
Could Greater Israel end up being a stepping stone towards my utopian end-state? I'd hope there would be a less harrowing path, but I don't see any route to one.
Attacking each other all the time is just what the left does. Especially when in government, because having won an election implies that the winner has sold out.
It's one of the reasons why, for all the apparent evidence to the contrary, my instinctive home is on the wet right, not the soft left.
Unrelated fun fact, Oscar Wilde was a married man. With two kids.
#justsaying
It seems unlikely though. I suggest they're just doing a bit of journalism now that there's no immediate risk of a Tory Government being elected.
Which is... disappointing.
Jenrick hasn't said much (anything?) about the scandal. That's sort of understandable.
But neither have his rivals, when there are 75 000 reasons to think he's awfully vulnerable.
Perhaps even some of the anti-corruption stuff, ironically. He's betraying the establishment so we'll take him down with us.
https://youtu.be/p8n_Gh173C8?si=eV01uCgJ3XqI7Doo
“The Rest is Politics” pod cast.
Skeir would win olympic gold at that
You OK chicken?
Eugh. Graft graft graft.
https://labourlist.org/2022/01/starmer-urges-public-to-call-time-on-government-in-party-political-broadcast/
Compare it with the backdrop when he gave interviews from home early in the pandemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJUI8ba85I
Two gin and tonics into the evening, making a laksa (my favourite cook-at-home meal), arranging drinks with a friend tomorrow, got a function at the weekend, daughters doing OK at Uni and Ozzie A Levels, got travel next week to multiple interesting places
A good moment. And now Labour collapsing all over the shop and the PB lefties weeping and asking us not to "destabilise the realm"
lololol!
Yes. I'm in a good mood, in a sometimes dark world
The interesting thing here to me, and what is telling, is how poorly the government has reacted to it. This is the sort of story that a strong government and PM should be able to bat aside.
The easiest way out was probably an “oops, yes, not our greatest look, we won’t be doing it anymore, let’s move on.”
The other way to do it would be to get the PM to fight it straight on. Either with a Blair/Cameron style “I’m actually a pretty straight kind of guy” disarming charm; or a “this is why I am right and you are wrong to make this an issue, there’s my justification, next question” Thatcher-style response.
I think the government ended up going with a mix of all these approaches and therefore completely messing it up. Starmer seemed to go for a “I haven’t done anything wrong but let me justify it” approach while simultaneously acknowledging why questions needed to be asked and just ended up sounding out of touch and prickly.
oh I don’t even have the heart to finish that sentence
Note that most of these folks are grand/great-grandchildren of immigrants, whose forebearers were imported in first years of the 20th century prior to the Guns of August 1914, to work in the steelmills built across the region, and also in parts of eastern PA.
Thus today the great Keystone State has (the web alleges) the 3rd-largest number UKR-USers in the nation, behind much larger NY & CA.
Demographic of perhaps above-average psephological interest for 2024.