What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
The point I am trying to make and perhaps badly, also not actually aimed at just starmer is tax laws should apply to all. It annoys me that some people seem to get exemptions from tax laws that apply to everyone else because of they are the top strata as they perceive.
For example met a few people that have a second home in my life because where they work is now not where there family live. They don't get to claim for expenses for it, rent or mortgage for it, expenses for furnishing for it. Mp's do. How is that fair especially when a lot of those mp's make a fortune on these second properties sooner or later?
One people, one taxcode is what I am asking for and it applies to all equally? Why is that extreme?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Sorry TSE, that would certainly excuse a poor performance of the speech. But I call absolute BS on his claims he never read, never thought about it. This was a major speech as part of a long organised major relaunch, those things aren't done on the day.
He is also still deflection, well it was others who wrote it, they didn't understand.
A leader would say, I got it wrong. There was a lot going on, reference the terrible attack, but I got it wrong, I apologiseend of statement.
If Dave posted on PB he would tell you big speeches are revised up until they are delivered.
From what I have read the Island of Strangers speech didn't go through the usual prep the arson events, his security detail were on a high level.
Remember at the time it was felt to be state linked terror and it may well turn out to be the case.
When Dave screwed up over the Aston Villa/West Ham thing the first version was talking about watching the West Indies growing up until the penultimate version.
And Dave didn't then do an interview going well I was very tired and the idiot speech writers f##ked it up. He just got on with things.
Also, the tone of Starmer's speech was all supposed to be that I understand, immigration is too high, it can't continue, I am listening, I will act. What is clear, he doesn't really believe this and because a few people have said to him that sounded a bit Enoch-y he is out deflecting blame. That is very different from Cameron's Aston West Villa United Ham.
Home Office staff are concerned about the “absurd” decision to ban Palestine Action under UK anti-terrorism laws, a senior civil servant has said.
“My colleagues and I were shocked by the announcement,” they said. “All week, the office has been a very tense atmosphere, charged with concern about treating a non-violent protest group the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis, and the dangerous precedent this sets.
“From desk to desk, colleagues are exchanging concerned and bemused conversations about how absurd this is and how impossible it will be to enforce. Are they really going to prosecute as terrorists everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action’s work to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel as it commits war crimes?
“It’s ridiculous and it’s being widely condemned in anxious conversations internally as a blatant misuse of anti-terror laws for political purposes to clamp down on protests which are affecting the profits of arms companies.”
I would have totally sympathised with this view UNTIL the stories came out about a) their sabotaging of arms for Ukraine and b) their pro-Putin backer.
It seems like only last week we were told of PA's Iranian money.
At the time, what I could see of social media was very angry at the PA plane stunt and split between calling it terrorism or even treason.
Now I am no hotshot lawyer like Keir Starmer or even Rob Jenrick but istm it is hard to call painting or even destroying planes terrorism but easy to call it treason.
Why is it hard to call it terrorism? Would it be terrorism if a bomb had been used to cause the criminal damage?
Who is terrorised? And that is why it would be different if PA were running around setting off bombs. Even if what they did is legally defined as terrorism, is it in the common use of the term?
Call it sabotage. Because that is what it is. Traditionally*, that gets you a short drop and a sudden stop.
The Tankies should be all for stringing up Saboteurs - they were always justifying Stalin doing that to anyone he called a Saboteur or a Wrecker....
*As codified in the early Hague conventions. You have to give them a nice trial, with no drum head court martials and a last cigarette.
"Umm... court-martial, followed by immediate cessation of chocolate rations?"
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Why and how did it take so long for him to realise and admit it?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Sorry TSE, that would certainly excuse a poor performance of the speech. But I call absolute BS on his claims he never read, never thought about it. This was a major speech as part of a long organised major relaunch, those things aren't done on the day.
He is also still deflection, well it was others who wrote it, they didn't understand.
A leader would say, I got it wrong. There was a lot going on, reference the terrible attack, but I got it wrong, I apologiseend of statement.
If Dave posted on PB he would tell you big speeches are revised up until they are delivered.
From what I have read the Island of Strangers speech didn't go through the usual prep the arson events, his security detail were on a high level.
Remember at the time it was felt to be state linked terror and it may well turn out to be the case.
When Dave screwed up over the Aston Villa/West Ham thing the first version was talking about watching the West Indies growing up until the penultimate version.
And Dave didn't then do an interview going well I was very tired and the idiot speech writers f##ked it up. He just got on with things.
Also, the tone of Starmer's speech was all supposed to be that I understand, immigration is too high, I am listening, I will act. What is clear, he doesn't really believe this. That is very different from Cameron's Aston West Villa United Ham.
He’s full of shit; always has been and always will be. Just because he’s boring, doesn’t mean he’s honest.
Keir Starmer
Honouring the referendum and Leaving the EU was a "Matter of Principle"
Also
Demanding a Second Referendum and campaigning to Remain was a "Matter of Principle"
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Interesting piece in NY Times arguing that SCOTUS just made the right call on judicial decisions as national injunctions.
"In rejecting the concept of the universal injunction, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the proper role of the federal courts within our constitutional system."
They probably did make the right decision. The issue is they made for entirely the wrong reasons and as a result of applying those reasons elsewhere have made some dreadful decisions that run counter to their own stated ideas (immunity, anyone)?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
It's one of those weird things, Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson wanted to be PM since they were born or thereabouts and spent their entire lives planning for it and once they got their they had no bloody idea what to do/were deeply unsuited to the role.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
Oh, come off it. If you are making the accusation the onus is on you.
Well seeing as its impossible to get his tax records no one can provide evidence except circumstantial such as making sure he wouldn't even pay income tax on his golden pension when most people are subject to it. We also know for a fact that all politicians don't get taxed for a lot of shit that everyday people do so yes sorry I absolutely believe till he disproves it that he wasn't taxed like one of the little people on his chauffeur driven perk. So do most people....proof indeed isn't even relevant its politics. Its what voters believe that counts not what is true and Starmer has demonstrated time and time again his venality for not paying for shit that normal people have to
What a load of waffle trying to defend a completely unsubstantiated allegation.
Do you disagree Starmer has a pension for being dpp that is not subject to income tax? Do you disagree Starmer has not taken freebies such as suits, glasses, concert and football tickets?
Why is this in your mind for circumstantial evidence for suggesting he never paid benefit in kind tax for a chauffeur driven car from home to office?
I can't prove he didn't without hacking hmrc....you can't prove he did....however given he avoids paying for anything he doesn't absolutely have to I think the balance of probabilities is on my side. If he doesn't like my opinion he can sue me and prove me wrong by providing his tax returns in a court of law
More waffle. If you are going to claim someone has been doing something illegally, you should have the evidence to back it up.
Let him sue....all mp's are tax avoiders, within the spirit of the law because they exempted themselves from the tax laws they pass for everyone else. I didn't say he did it illegally I said he didn't pay tax that normal people would have been expected to pay because pretty sure there will be some exemption somewhere in the tax code for people like him
Shut up, before you get the site into trouble.
Also can you provide evidence that you don't bugger goats every Friday and the first Saturday of the month.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
It's one of those weird things, Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson wanted to be PM since they were born or thereabouts and spent their entire lives planning for it and once they got their they had no bloody idea what to do/were deeply unsuited to the role.
I think Gordon Brown did have a vision, the problem was his unsuitability, the micro-managing, inability to delegate, such that the demands to make decisions that day, that hour, that minute weren't made and that bogged absolutely everything down.
There was that famous photo of piles and piles of papers that had formed as a backlog because Brown was always asking for more information before he was willing to sign things off.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
Routine, yes, but also funny when they had to defend his pension while arguing others should not enjoy the same uncapped allowance.
It's not really a party political argument though, or it wasn't until Starmer became Labour leader. Judges steamrollered the Treasury into exempting them from the new pension tax rules in 2006 with threats of mass resignation. Starmer/his predecessor as DPP were fortunate to be under their wing.
I don't even think the judges were wrong to push. These were mostly very highly paid lawyers taking substantial pay cuts to become judges. The generous pension helped ease that pain but many of them had no "headroom" for further pension accrual if caught in the new tax rules.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Sorry TSE, that would certainly excuse a poor performance of the speech. But I call absolute BS on his claims he never read, never thought about it. This was a major speech as part of a long organised major relaunch, those things aren't done on the day.
He is also still deflection, well it was others who wrote it, they didn't understand.
A leader would say, I got it wrong. There was a lot going on, reference the terrible attack, but I got it wrong, I apologiseend of statement.
If Dave posted on PB he would tell you big speeches are revised up until they are delivered.
If Dave posted on PB, he would tell you that AV is crap.
“I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.
“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.
“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.
“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.
“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.
“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.
“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.
“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote. “You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.
“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.
“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Lest we forget, Rebecca Long-Bailey was the favourite to succeed Corbyn and Starmer was told/realised he was the one to stop Labour being out of power for decades.
If Starmer’s head wasn’t in the game, and he wasn’t convinced about the speech he was delivering as a result, he just shouldn’t have done the speech. Reschedule it. He’s the PM, he doesn’t have to do it. When you’re PM you can get venues rebooked on pretty short notice Id expect.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Tbf, with Brown having destroyed many promising contenders before 2010, the Miliband brothers eating each other up, Cameron and Sturgeon in Robinson’s words machine gunning about a third of the Shadow Cabinet in 2015, Burnham and a few others heading off to be mayors and Corbyn taking a wrecking ball to what was left it’s not as though there were many other options.
It is worth remembering the only other candidate Labour could muster in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. And there is no doubt even if Starmer is hardly Clement Attlee that he was the right choice if she was the alternative.
If Starmer’s head wasn’t in the game, and he wasn’t convinced about the speech he was delivering as a result, he just shouldn’t have done the speech. Reschedule it. He’s the PM, he doesn’t have to do it. When you’re PM you can get venues rebooked on pretty short notice Id expect.
Sorry, it’s a feeble excuse
And given the situation, any press that would have criticised the rescheduling would look like total dicks.
I don’t agree that Palestine Action are a “terrorist” organisation.
The anti-terror laws are, perhaps rightly, very oppressive. They should be used sparingly. This is another overreach from the Home Office.
On the other hand, I would not have been scandalised had the vandals been shot by troops in their attempt to sabotage the planes.
Am the only person who holds this opinion?
I agree with that. The British establishment seems obsessed with legal process to the detriment of actually doing anything. They believe making new laws is action in and of itself, when all they have to do is enforce laws we already have
Same goes for the boat people. Firm action turning some back would probably end loads of them. Yes there is a risk people might die but then these people knowingly take these risks to invade the country illegally
turn them back or burst a few and that will be end of it, we are led by wankers. Ban all benefits for any that reach here as well. If they can afford thousands to crooks to get on a dinghy then they can fend for themselves. Further I would start breaking the fingers of shoplifters and think up some more decent rules for ne'er do wells breaking the law. Litter louts forced to eat their litter. I could go on.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Tbf, with Brown having destroyed many promising contenders before 2010, the Miliband brothers eating each other up, Cameron and Sturgeon in Robinson’s words machine gunning about a third of the Shadow Cabinet in 2015, Burnham and a few others heading off to be mayors and Corbyn taking a wrecking ball to what was left it’s not as though there were many other options.
It is worth remembering the only other candidate Labour could muster in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. And there is no doubt even if Starmer is hardly Clement Attlee that he was the right choice if she was the alternative.
I think this is important. We don't have a new Thatcher or Blair waiting in the wings. The standard of the other candidates for PM, in any party, is not great.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
It really could be something as simple as people being rude to him, and he decided to demonstrate otherwise.
And clearly there was a gaping opportunity for Labour to move into the abyss left by the Tories (I doubt any government anywhere has so comprehensively booked their own removal services than the Tories).
And so here we are.
(My view is that he's doing rather well - but if this traditional ex-Tory view of 'rather well' isn't quite accepted, then who knows)
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Tbf, with Brown having destroyed many promising contenders before 2010, the Miliband brothers eating each other up, Cameron and Sturgeon in Robinson’s words machine gunning about a third of the Shadow Cabinet in 2015, Burnham and a few others heading off to be mayors and Corbyn taking a wrecking ball to what was left it’s not as though there were many other options.
It is worth remembering the only other candidate Labour could muster in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. And there is no doubt even if Starmer is hardly Clement Attlee that he was the right choice if she was the alternative.
The alternative was Lisa Nandy. That's who I voted for. As did several other PBers.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
If you want a real laugh, check out the threads in December 2021 which criticised Starmer for raising the partygate allegations.
Also read the threads between the 5th and 7th of September 2022 for absolutely comedy gold (especially around the time the first PMQs featuring Liz Truss).
I owe Leon apology, saying Liz Truss would surprise on the upside wasn't the worst prediction made about Truss on PB.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
Yes, it is all a bit florid. Starmer on his worst day is no match for Johnson, Truss, May, or even Sunak's amusing shambles.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Tbf, with Brown having destroyed many promising contenders before 2010, the Miliband brothers eating each other up, Cameron and Sturgeon in Robinson’s words machine gunning about a third of the Shadow Cabinet in 2015, Burnham and a few others heading off to be mayors and Corbyn taking a wrecking ball to what was left it’s not as though there were many other options.
It is worth remembering the only other candidate Labour could muster in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. And there is no doubt even if Starmer is hardly Clement Attlee that he was the right choice if she was the alternative.
The alternative was Lisa Nandy. That's who I voted for. As did several other PBers.
But Labour use the AV system, who was your second choice?
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
Angela Rayner has, I presume, the votes she needs to succeed Starmer.
The problem though is that I suspect she might be unelectable. I admire the incredible tenacity, bravery, and cunning it has taken to rise to her current position, but she doesn’t strike me as even moderately intelligent or coherent enough to do the job.
Increasingly I wonder whether Jenrick does indeed have what it takes to outflank Reform, and I cannot pick the winner of a Jenrick v Rayner head to head.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Angela Rayner has, I presume, the votes she needs to succeed Starmer.
The problem though is that I suspect she might be unelectable. I admire the incredible tenacity, bravery, and cunning it has taken to rise to her current position, but she doesn’t strike me as even moderately intelligent or coherent enough to do the job.
Increasingly I wonder whether Jenrick does indeed have what it takes to outflank Reform, and I cannot pick the winner of a Jenrick v Rayner head to head.
She should sue her cometic surgeon - she can hardly speak coherently now!
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
Sir Gang Smasher is fulfilling your hopes and expectations?
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Why can't Vanilla developers spell Performance? Or do they mean Preformance? Aggravating looking at a non-responsive webpage with an apparent spelling mistake in it. But at least it's let me in again now.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
Angela Rayner has, I presume, the votes she needs to succeed Starmer.
The problem though is that I suspect she might be unelectable. I admire the incredible tenacity, bravery, and cunning it has taken to rise to her current position, but she doesn’t strike me as even moderately intelligent or coherent enough to do the job.
Increasingly I wonder whether Jenrick does indeed have what it takes to outflank Reform, and I cannot pick the winner of a Jenrick v Rayner head to head.
I think Rayner would have won last years election . As for moderately intelligent or coherent not sure you really need that now in our political age ! I like her and would vote for her and she’d certainly win with Labour members .
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
Brittas: "You can't argue with a government department!"
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
Cometh the hour, cometh the (wo)man. But maybe we're finding out what happens when (s)he doesn't turn up.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I would just say it is not better, no worse than when Johnson was PM but Labour supporters do not like it now their PM is under fire and frankly , whilst in a different way, much the same likely outcome will follow
Okay, so here's a slightly alternative view. Rather than whinging about the benefits U-turn, we should celebrate a bit that our parliamentary democracy works rather well. The government puts forward a bill and, when it becomes clear that it probably won't be supported by a parliamentary majority, the government adjusts the bill until it is acceptable to a majority. The system is working well - that's democracy for you.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Utter nonsense
I was one of many who queried the event, and as you may see, I am still here but today's criticism of Starmer come from across the political spectrum and he only has himself to blame
And I may add that was one event he got away with, these are multiple self inflicted wounds and errors
Okay, so here's a slightly alternative view. Rather than whinging about the benefits U-turn, we should celebrate a bit that our parliamentary democracy works rather well. The government puts forward a bill and, when it becomes clear that it probably won't be supported by a parliamentary majority, the government adjusts the bill until it is acceptable to a majority. The system is working well - that's democracy for you.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
Yes and no.
On WFA in particular, they have come up with a worse solution than the previous system. It won't save any money after all the extra admin. So they have bounced from a poor solution to another poor solution. There were much better ways of getting money of rich pensioners.
And the first, it seems all the details are still up for debate. The solution as briefed is still going to result in ever increasing cost of benefits with no clear way how they are going to be paid for.
Okay, so here's a slightly alternative view. Rather than whinging about the benefits U-turn, we should celebrate a bit that our parliamentary democracy works rather well. The government puts forward a bill and, when it becomes clear that it probably won't be supported by a parliamentary majority, the government adjusts the bill until it is acceptable to a majority. The system is working well - that's democracy for you.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
Maybe not put forward an unpopular and ill judged bill in the first place
Also he has established a reputation for u turning so why should anyone believe anything he proposes?
Oh dear. I was making a point about the strength of our parliamentary democracy, and how it is something to be celebrated. Typically, my critics have ignored my point and talked about something else. C'est la vie.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
We know from Currygate and Freebiegate that Starmer knows precisely where the lines are drawn and how to stay just on the right side of them, and from Partygate how to oust Prime Ministers who step over them. So yes, I'd expect Starmer's car use to have been wholly within the letter if not the spirit of tax law.
He claims he can't even read his own fucking speech
As has been pointed out, the speech was made hours after somebody tried to burn his family members alive, which was second such fire related to Starmer.
His attention may have been elsewhere.
Mrs T managed to give a speech in Brighton the day she escaped death, and her friends were killed, in the Brighton bombing. Obviously Starmer would have been upset by what happened at his old home, but surely that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have read the speech before giving it? He’s not Ron Burgundy
Politicians are people, some people react differently to the same events.
Some people aren't cut out to be Prime Minister.
The best theory I have heard is that Starmer entered politics to ultimately become Attorney-General or Lord Chancellor.
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
And then he tripped and fell into running for leadership? Rather than backing a candidate with the promise of being AG / LC.
Lest we forget, Rebecca Long-Bailey was the favourite to succeed Corbyn and Starmer was told/realised he was the one to stop Labour being out of power for decades.
December 2019 was a crazy time.
Similar to the problem the Conservatives have- Kemi seems to be useless, but the alternatives are at least as flawed, if not more so.
There aren't that many people who are up to the job of PM- probably even fewer now than in previous decades, thanks to the 24/7 news cycle. On top of that, both of the big two parties applied a tourniquet to their talent pipeline (no sniggering at the back) in the late 2010s.
My theory remains that Starmer's job in 2020 was to lance certain Jez-shaped boils, lose not too badly in 2023, then stand down to a potential PM-in-waiting. Even if BoJo's collapse was foreseeable, the Trusstastrophe wasn't. No wonder his programme for government was undercooked.
Okay, so here's a slightly alternative view. Rather than whinging about the benefits U-turn, we should celebrate a bit that our parliamentary democracy works rather well. The government puts forward a bill and, when it becomes clear that it probably won't be supported by a parliamentary majority, the government adjusts the bill until it is acceptable to a majority. The system is working well - that's democracy for you.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
You're not wrong.
Those who are opposed to Starmer and the current Labour Government will have a go about "weakness" (makes a change from "wokeness" I suppose) but as you say that's how a parliamentary democracy should function.
However, there's a salient point about the quality of the drafting of legislation. Poorly crafted legislation is or seems to be too often the norm these days. Legislation needs proper scrutiny and it gets that but it needs in its original form to be of a suitable quality to withstand that scrutiny.
Oh dear. I was making a point about the strength of our parliamentary democracy, and how it is something to be celebrated. Typically, my critics have ignored my point and talked about something else. C'est la vie.
Is it a strength to not care about balancing the books?
All I can say on airport lounges is the last one I visited with Mrs Stodge - the Star Alliance Lounge on the sixth floor of the Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX was excellent.
Free food, free drink, comfortable armchairs and showers to bridge the five and a half hour layover before the long Air NZ flight to Auckland - Business Premier with excellent lie flat beds, great food and drink and the biggest thrill of all, six hours sleep across the Pacific. We arrived in Auckland if not fresh as paint then certainly not zombies.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
The point I am trying to make and perhaps badly, also not actually aimed at just starmer is tax laws should apply to all. It annoys me that some people seem to get exemptions from tax laws that apply to everyone else because of they are the top strata as they perceive.
For example met a few people that have a second home in my life because where they work is now not where there family live. They don't get to claim for expenses for it, rent or mortgage for it, expenses for furnishing for it. Mp's do. How is that fair especially when a lot of those mp's make a fortune on these second properties sooner or later?
One people, one taxcode is what I am asking for and it applies to all equally? Why is that extreme?
Not extreme, just naive. Just be grateful you are British, which is relatively hair shirt as far as politicians' perks and favours are concerned, and not almost anywhere else. Try your complaint in Italy, per exempio.
As I’ve posted before, Ed Milliband shouldn’t have resigned after the 2015 election, although it’s arguable that Brother David should have been the leader anyway. Labour was in a mess after 2010 (or maybe 2008 or thereabouts) and needed a new leader.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Yes! Both sides can be guilty. But currently, the Starmer haters lead by miles.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
We have people banging on about how every prime minister from Thatcher onwards was terrible. Except for John Major, I think.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I would just say it is not better, no worse than when Johnson was PM but Labour supporters do not like it now their PM is under fire and frankly , whilst in a different way, much the same likely outcome will follow
Where are the leaders who leave office carried out on the shoulders of their troops with cheers all around? Blair was perhaps the last.
Angela Rayner has, I presume, the votes she needs to succeed Starmer.
The problem though is that I suspect she might be unelectable. I admire the incredible tenacity, bravery, and cunning it has taken to rise to her current position, but she doesn’t strike me as even moderately intelligent or coherent enough to do the job.
Increasingly I wonder whether Jenrick does indeed have what it takes to outflank Reform, and I cannot pick the winner of a Jenrick v Rayner head to head.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Yes! Both sides can be guilty. But currently, the Starmer haters lead by miles.
Now you are talking BS. Scott n Paste has spent 10 years were 99.9% of his posts are quoting tweets about how terrible Brexit / Trump. His only competition in the obsession market is Steve Bray.
Okay, so here's a slightly alternative view. Rather than whinging about the benefits U-turn, we should celebrate a bit that our parliamentary democracy works rather well. The government puts forward a bill and, when it becomes clear that it probably won't be supported by a parliamentary majority, the government adjusts the bill until it is acceptable to a majority. The system is working well - that's democracy for you.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
“Rather than moan about the unprecedented carnage at the Somme, we should celebrate a bit that so many British soldiers are willing to climb out of a trench and dutifully plod towards certain death for no reason whatsoever. This is how wars are meant to work”
I was very heavily involved in what remains the UK's biggest fraud trial in 2012. It was brought by the CPS while Starmer was DPP.
The actual CPS lawyer dealing with it was appalling. At one point, the CPS tried repeatedly to break the law on disclosure and after I had firmly told them to bugger off, they made the City of London detective in charge of the investigation apologise to me for something which was entirely the CPS's fault. The CPS's lawyer's contribution to the trial was to sleep through most of it.
Doubtless Starmer was dealing with other stuff but my view of the CPS's competence and integrity was that it was a shambles. Still, at least they did something. The SFO declined to get involved in what was a serious fraud for reasons which remain inexplicable and my subsequent experience of them showed them to be even more incompetent than the CPS. The City of London police were, by contrast, pretty effective.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Yes! Both sides can be guilty. But currently, the Starmer haters lead by miles.
Now you are talking BS. Scott n Paste has spent 10 years were 99.9% of his posts are quoting tweets about how terrible Brexit / Trump. His only competition in the obsession market is Steve Bray.
Are you trying to catch up with your repetitive Brittas guff?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
It appears Starmer has lost the Glasto vote....with them chanting F##k Keir Starmer.
His poll rating might actually go up now.
Glastonbury is Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas heartland with a crowd who would prefer purist leftwing woke Labour leaders who lose but stay true to their socialist principles than a centrist Labour leader like Blair or Starmer who wins
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Yes! Both sides can be guilty. But currently, the Starmer haters lead by miles.
Now you are talking BS. Scott n Paste has spent 10 years were 99.9% of his posts are quoting tweets about how terrible Brexit / Trump. His only competition in the obsession market is Steve Bray.
Are you trying to catch up with your repetitive Brittas guff?
Oh yeah all my posts are that...except they aren't anywhere near.
In fact, if you followed careful, I actually said the other day I thought Starmer had done fairly well in his with dealing with Trump.
In the US, prosecutors (and former prosecutors) sometimes get protection that ordinary government employees do not. (And sometimes need it.) It's possible that Starmer got his car trips for that reason.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
We have people banging on about how every prime minister from Thatcher onwards was terrible. Except for John Major, I think.
What is different here is Starmer as PM is a pale shadow of the person who won the election
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
But you're obviously not thinking straight (or at all), as usual, and being all drugged up into the bargain.
The Chagos deal was laid by the Tories, and of all the events during this parliament will be the most forgotten and irrelevant come the next vote.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
He's down the end of the runway every weekend, with lots of time to invent fanciful stories based off of some writer guy he follows very closely on twitter?
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
For a Brexiteer you're very abusive of those who enabled Brexit.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
The point I am trying to make and perhaps badly, also not actually aimed at just starmer is tax laws should apply to all. It annoys me that some people seem to get exemptions from tax laws that apply to everyone else because of they are the top strata as they perceive.
For example met a few people that have a second home in my life because where they work is now not where there family live. They don't get to claim for expenses for it, rent or mortgage for it, expenses for furnishing for it. Mp's do. How is that fair especially when a lot of those mp's make a fortune on these second properties sooner or later?
One people, one taxcode is what I am asking for and it applies to all equally? Why is that extreme?
Not extreme, just naive. Just be grateful you are British, which is relatively hair shirt as far as politicians' perks and favours are concerned, and not almost anywhere else. Try your complaint in Italy, per exempio.
It is naive to assume laws apply to all and just not the little people? Maybe why politics is fucked in this country and many others. I am one of the little people and frankly fed up of people passing laws and taxes that don't apply to them....carry on wait for us to go no not having that
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
His premiership was doomed. He should have realised that and called a referendum in his final year - venting the steam for decades. But nope
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
They may have been routine, the point is still one rule for the important people...a different rule for the little people
you don't even understand what this law does do you?
I know exactly what it does it exempts dpp's and judges from rules that apply to everyone else because they are to important to obey the laws for little people
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
We have people banging on about how every prime minister from Thatcher onwards was terrible. Except for John Major, I think.
What is different here is Starmer as PM is a pale shadow of the person who won the election
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
They may have been routine, the point is still one rule for the important people...a different rule for the little people
you don't even understand what this law does do you?
I know exactly what it does it exempts dpp's and judges from rules that apply to everyone else because they are to important to obey the laws for little people
how many little people do you think were exceeding their lifetime pension allowance?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
“Keir Starmer billed taxpayers for nearly a quarter of a million pounds in travel costs while he was director of public prosecutions, it has been revealed.
The future Labour leader put nearly three times as much on expenses as his CPS successor Alison Saunders, including first class flights abroad and a chauffeur driven car.
Sir Keir charged taxpayers £161,273 for the vehicle and driver despite living just four miles and a direct Tube ride from the Crown Prosecution Service offices.
The car cost taxpayers an average of £1,920 a week for nearly two years until he stopped using it following embarrassing media reports.
Sir Keir served as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for five years from 2008-13.
His successor Alison Saunders, who was also DPP for five years, spent £67,340, less than a third of Sir Keir’s total.“
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
Nick Clegg a “natural born leader”?! Nick Clegg??
To be honest I’m not sure any of those three are natural born leaders - perhaps Boris in his early days but clegg is the least leader-ish of all
Comments
For example met a few people that have a second home in my life because where they work is now not where there family live. They don't get to claim for expenses for it, rent or mortgage for it, expenses for furnishing for it. Mp's do. How is that fair especially when a lot of those mp's make a fortune on these second properties sooner or later?
One people, one taxcode is what I am asking for and it applies to all equally? Why is that extreme?
Also, the tone of Starmer's speech was all supposed to be that I understand, immigration is too high, it can't continue, I am listening, I will act. What is clear, he doesn't really believe this and because a few people have said to him that sounded a bit Enoch-y he is out deflecting blame. That is very different from Cameron's Aston West Villa United Ham.
But you'll never guess what car number they gave Brad Pitt, it was brilliantly sutble.
7.
Yes, SEVEN.
Se7en!!!
It's like Rayner's Tory scum apology
Keir Starmer
Honouring the referendum and Leaving the EU was a "Matter of Principle"
Also
Demanding a Second Referendum and campaigning to Remain was a "Matter of Principle"
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1938921905269944662?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The second theory which also works on its own and with theory one, he was umming and ahhing about becoming an MP but the timeframes forced his hand, his tenure as DPP ended 18 months before the 2015 election and Ed Miliband told him it was now or never.
I suspect if the timeframe wasn't so narrow he might have pondered longer and decided politics wasn't for him.
There was that famous photo of piles and piles of papers that had formed as a backlog because Brown was always asking for more information before he was willing to sign things off.
I don't even think the judges were wrong to push. These were mostly very highly paid lawyers taking substantial pay cuts to become judges. The generous pension helped ease that pain but many of them had no "headroom" for further pension accrual if caught in the new tax rules.
“I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.
“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.
“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.
“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.
“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.
“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.
“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.
“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote. “You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.
“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.
“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”
- Dave in the Torygraph, 2011.
December 2019 was a crazy time.
Sorry, it’s a feeble excuse
Island of strangers was planned, and is now being lied about
Who would hire this faulty robot as their lawyer?
It is worth remembering the only other candidate Labour could muster in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. And there is no doubt even if Starmer is hardly Clement Attlee that he was the right choice if she was the alternative.
He’s lost John Rentoul for sure
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1938975284637691933?s=61
Brings on Ange. The posh boys working class ‘Everyman’
Further I would start breaking the fingers of shoplifters and think up some more decent rules for ne'er do wells breaking the law. Litter louts forced to eat their litter. I could go on.
And clearly there was a gaping opportunity for Labour to move into the abyss left by the Tories (I doubt any government anywhere has so comprehensively booked their own removal services than the Tories).
And so here we are.
(My view is that he's doing rather well - but if this traditional ex-Tory view of 'rather well' isn't quite accepted, then who knows)
Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
Also read the threads between the 5th and 7th of September 2022 for absolutely comedy gold (especially around the time the first PMQs featuring Liz Truss).
I owe Leon apology, saying Liz Truss would surprise on the upside wasn't the worst prediction made about Truss on PB.
The problem though is that I suspect she might be unelectable.
I admire the incredible tenacity, bravery, and cunning it has taken to rise to her current position, but she doesn’t strike me as even moderately intelligent or coherent enough to do the job.
Increasingly I wonder whether Jenrick does indeed have what it takes to outflank Reform, and I cannot pick the winner of a Jenrick v Rayner head to head.
But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Sorry..
Pelaw Rice.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
His poll rating might actually go up now.
Pretty much the same applies to the WFA U-turn, although the government was too slow to react, because, I suspect, MPs themselves didn't foresee the scale of the backlash.
I was one of many who queried the event, and as you may see, I am still here but today's criticism of Starmer come from across the political spectrum and he only has himself to blame
And I may add that was one event he got away with, these are multiple self inflicted wounds and errors
On WFA in particular, they have come up with a worse solution than the previous system. It won't save any money after all the extra admin. So they have bounced from a poor solution to another poor solution. There were much better ways of getting money of rich pensioners.
And the first, it seems all the details are still up for debate. The solution as briefed is still going to result in ever increasing cost of benefits with no clear way how they are going to be paid for.
Also he has established a reputation for u turning so why should anyone believe anything he proposes?
There aren't that many people who are up to the job of PM- probably even fewer now than in previous decades, thanks to the 24/7 news cycle. On top of that, both of the big two parties applied a tourniquet to their talent pipeline (no sniggering at the back) in the late 2010s.
My theory remains that Starmer's job in 2020 was to lance certain Jez-shaped boils, lose not too badly in 2023, then stand down to a potential PM-in-waiting. Even if BoJo's collapse was foreseeable, the Trusstastrophe wasn't. No wonder his programme for government was undercooked.
Those who are opposed to Starmer and the current Labour Government will have a go about "weakness" (makes a change from "wokeness" I suppose) but as you say that's how a parliamentary democracy should function.
However, there's a salient point about the quality of the drafting of legislation. Poorly crafted legislation is or seems to be too often the norm these days. Legislation needs proper scrutiny and it gets that but it needs in its original form to be of a suitable quality to withstand that scrutiny.
Free food, free drink, comfortable armchairs and showers to bridge the five and a half hour layover before the long Air NZ flight to Auckland - Business Premier with excellent lie flat beds, great food and drink and the biggest thrill of all, six hours sleep across the Pacific. We arrived in Auckland if not fresh as paint then certainly not zombies.
Wee I guess the car must have been an old banger 😂
Labour was in a mess after 2010 (or maybe 2008 or thereabouts) and needed a new leader.
Have wheels fallen off Farage 'assassination plot' story?
Volvo V70 model owned by Ukip leader, who suggested his car had been tampered with, may have been subject of recall in 2010 over wheel problems
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/04/wheels-fall-off-farage-assassination-plot-story-recall-revelation
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Everyone in UK political discourse gets a by when it comes to embarrassing political speech gaffes when compared to Peppa Pig.
"Release the sausages" was comedy gold.
The actual CPS lawyer dealing with it was appalling. At one point, the CPS tried repeatedly to break the law on disclosure and after I had firmly told them to bugger off, they made the City of London detective in charge of the investigation apologise to me for something which was entirely the CPS's fault. The CPS's lawyer's contribution to the trial was to sleep through most of it.
Doubtless Starmer was dealing with other stuff but my view of the CPS's competence and integrity was that it was a shambles. Still, at least they did something. The SFO declined to get involved in what was a serious fraud for reasons which remain inexplicable and my subsequent experience of them showed them to be even more incompetent than the CPS. The City of London police were, by contrast, pretty effective.
In fact, if you followed careful, I actually said the other day I thought Starmer had done fairly well in his with dealing with Trump.
He is simply a huge disappointment
The Chagos deal was laid by the Tories, and of all the events during this parliament will be the most forgotten and irrelevant come the next vote.
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
https://x.com/iamtomskinner/status/1938983652525756458?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Most odd.
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
To be honest I’m not sure any of those three are natural born leaders - perhaps Boris in his early days but clegg is the least leader-ish of all