Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on November 03, 2021, 04:21:05 pm
-
And so the two fingers from the Tory Party to any concept of any accountability for their actions continues.
Owen Paterson MP (remember him - he's the Brexit fanatic who said we would be insane to leave the Single Market - then voted to leave the Single Market) has been found by the cross-party Commons Standards Committee to have been totally breaking the rules by pimping himself out to companies and lobbying ministers on their behalf. He gets paid £110,000 per year for that work.
The Standards Committee recommended tat he be banned from the Commons.
The Tory party has just voted that down in the House of Commons.
There's a pattern here. But yeah, they're all the same aren't they?
-
In fairness, hats off to the 13 Tory MPs who had the guts to vote against their party on this one.
-
In fairness, hats off to the 13 Tory MPs who had the guts to vote against their party on this one.
I wonder which way Don Valley arse licker voted, in fact without looking I know which way he will have voted
-
I have absolutely no faith in any politician in this country. I am fairly convinced that if Labour were in power they would have done exactly the same.
All bent as a nine Bob note.
The system is so corrupt and we just have to sit back whilst they all let their mates and their own companies pick up these million or in some cases billion pound contracts.
Disgusting, corrupt the whole lot of em
-
I have absolutely no faith in any politician in this country. I am fairly convinced that if Labour were in power they would have done exactly the same.
All bent as a nine Bob note.
The system is so corrupt and we just have to sit back whilst they all let their mates and their own companies pick up these million or in some cases billion pound contracts.
Disgusting, corrupt the whole lot of em
Except that when Labour WERE in power, they immediately took action against anyone who even had a whiff of scandal about them. Like Mandelson for example, who was found totally blameless by one enquiry, but who had been sacked before the enquiry even met. Whereas we now have a PM who has enquiries, gets the report of the enquiry then totally ignores it. It's happened with Priti Patel having hounded a senior civil servant out of post. It's happened with the Russia Report. And it's just happened today with Paterson.
It's bone idle to lump them all together.
-
Did Labour have a majority vote in the commons at this point? Genuine question as I don't know.
Might be a bit bone idle with my political knowledge these days but I have no faith in any of the main parties in this country anymore. I am sure there might be the odd MP that has a genuine concern and interest in the country and its people, but I am struggling to think of many.
-
Appalling and a dark day for democracy - this is what happens in banana republics.
I have mentioned many times but as I am proved more and more correct, fascism never arrives all at once, it comes in small incremental steps.
-
Did Labour have a majority vote in the commons at this point? Genuine question as I don't know.
Might be a bit bone idle with my political knowledge these days but I have no faith in any of the main parties in this country anymore. I am sure there might be the odd MP that has a genuine concern and interest in the country and its people, but I am struggling to think of many.
Yes. Labour set up the Independent Commission and process to judge MP's standards on conduct that the Tories have just ridden roughshod over. It had massive cross party support at the time.
-
In fairness, hats off to the 13 Tory MPs who had the guts to vote against their party on this one.
I wonder which way Don Valley arse licker voted, in fact without looking I know which way he will have voted
Just checked and yes he voted for it as expected, again Don Valley what have you voted for?
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Exactly this. The rules may be rubbish, but don't change them just because your mates been hard done by. He may well have been by the way but it don't look good.
-
When Johnson had £1/4m spent on his flat and he couldn't remember who paid for it, a Cabinet Minister was interviewed on the radio. He got torn to bits by the interviewer, and finally lost his rag. He said that it didn't matter to voters - the Tories were still ahead in the polls.
And that's the point. Democracy slips away when you can have banana republic corruption at the centre of government and the voters don't give a f**k.
We'll keep all the trappings of democracy for sure. But if we just "meh" to the shit that this lot reckon they can get away with, it'll be nothing more than a façade.
-
Still up to the opposition to create a viable alternative. They still have yet to do that.
-
Still up to the opposition to create a viable alternative. They still have yet to do that.
That still doesn’t make it right that this lot can disregard rules as they see fit
-
A new low this Patterson case.
Anyone remember Neil Hamilton? Cash for questions and all that. Pilloried by everyone in Parliament and rightly so.
Thought we'd left all that behind.
-
Unfortunately the electorate don't care about corruption. Meh, move on...
-
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
-
Still up to the opposition to create a viable alternative. They still have yet to do that.
That's a bit like saying people it's ok to burgle because there aren't enough police.
If something is wrong you shouldn't take advantage of weakness to get away with it.
-
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
The majority were paired with Tory MPs who weren't able to vote so had to abstain.
-
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
Milliband is in Glasgow at COP. Starmer is isolating from covid. I am sure you will find most/all the others had legitamate reasons too.
Rees-Mogg removed the option to vote remotely you will remember.
-
https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1455973164765302785
-
Politics, policies, effectiveness and my own centrist/slightly left of centre leanings aside, this is an unpleasant, untrustworthy and self serving set of polliticians as you can wish for. Completely dishonest and self serving to the point I'm not even outraged by this. I used to be arrogantly blase when this happened in other countries "knowing" it couldn't happen here but now I just think its the norm. Must be nice to be able to make your own rules.
-
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
Milliband is in Glasgow at COP. Starmer is isolating from covid. I am sure you will find most/all the others had legitamate reasons too.
Rees-Mogg removed the option to vote remotely you will remember.
It's a regular thing when MPs can't be in Westminster for a vote. An MP who would have voted No, "pairs" with one who would have voted "Aye,". They both agree not to vote. So it makes no difference to the result.
Although the Far Left Twitterati are pushing the line that this is a disgrace and Starmer should be disemboweled...
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
-
The position is best understood by looking at how many have skin in the game;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/quarter-of-mps-calling-to-replace-sleaze-watchdog-have-been-punished-by-it/
Good reason for many concerned with their own interests!
-
I guess while they have a majority they could bring in a law 'Not to question a sitting tory member of parliament for any reason' and have done with it.
egregious
/ɪˈɡriːdʒəs/
1.
outstandingly bad; shocking.
"egregious abuses of copyright"
-
Still up to the opposition to create a viable alternative. They still have yet to do that.
That's a bit like saying people it's ok to burgle because there aren't enough police.
If something is wrong you shouldn't take advantage of weakness to get away with it.
Rubbish analogy to be fair. Things are not as simple as one isolated case are they? You could ping out tonnes of reasons either way.
The point still stands that this is a stupid move by the Tories and it's up to the opposition to present a better case to remove them.
-
Still up to the opposition to create a viable alternative. They still have yet to do that.
That's a bit like saying people it's ok to burgle because there aren't enough police.
If something is wrong you shouldn't take advantage of weakness to get away with it.
Rubbish analogy to be fair. Things are not as simple as one isolated case are they? You could ping out tonnes of reasons either way.
The point still stands that this is a stupid move by the Tories and it's up to the opposition to present a better case to remove them.
Here's some simple reasons from the link Albie put up
''Quarter of MPs calling to replace sleaze watchdog have been punished by it''
-
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
The vote was lost by 18, 28 Labour MP’s abstained, including Ed Milliband, I have to say that is deriliction of duty from those MP’s
Milliband is in Glasgow at COP. Starmer is isolating from covid. I am sure you will find most/all the others had legitamate reasons too.
Rees-Mogg removed the option to vote remotely you will remember.
It's a regular thing when MPs can't be in Westminster for a vote. An MP who would have voted No, "pairs" with one who would have voted "Aye,". They both agree not to vote. So it makes no difference to the result.
Although the Far Left Twitterati are pushing the line that this is a disgrace and Starmer should be disemboweled...
Yes forgot about that, didn’t during a tight brexit vote a Tory MP, agree to pair with a Labour MP at end of life and couldn’t vote, then go against the pair and voted anyway
-
But it's NOT one isolated case BFYP.
1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/4m he didn't have came from to pay for his gold wallpaper. He had that investigated by a person he himself had specifically chosen for the task.
2) The independent enquiry that found Patel to have bullied a staff member into resigning. Johnson said, no, Patel isnt a bully and refused to take any other action.
3) The cross party Russia Report that was incredulous that Johnson wasn't ordering an investigation into meddling in our elections. Johnson ignored it.
4) The Tory MP guilty of persistent sexual harassment. No action.
There's a pattern. No action will be taken in any circumstances that points the finger at the Tory Party. So they can literally do what they want.
And the biggest two fingers of all? Johnson has appointed at ex-Bullingdon Club chum as an ethics adviser!
-
They did Filo. Not only corrupt but morally bankrupt too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/brexit/mps-pairing-controversy-jo-swinson-177822/amp
Brandon Lewis was punished by being made a Cabinet Minister...
-
Bit of context here. This is the first time since WWII that a Parliamentary Standards watchdog has recommended sanctioning an MP only for the Commons to vote against it.
-
But it's NOT one isolated case BFYP.
1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/4m he didn't have came from to pay for his gold wallpaper. He had that investigated by a person he himself had specifically chosen for the task.
2) The independent enquiry that found Patel to have bullied a staff member into resigning. Johnson said, no, Patel isnt a bully and refused to take any other action.
3) The cross party Russia Report that was incredulous that Johnson wasn't ordering an investigation into meddling in our elections. Johnson ignored it.
4) The Tory MP guilty of persistent sexual harassment. No action.
There's a pattern. No action will be taken in any circumstances that points the finger at the Tory Party. So they can literally do what they want.
And the biggest two fingers of all? Johnson has appointed at ex-Bullingdon Club chum as an ethics adviser!
Point 4 was brought up by Angela Rayner at PMQ's today.
Sex pest Rob Roberts was found guilty of persistant sexual harassment of a staff member by a different committee. That committee was not able to sack him or make him liable to a recall petition - unlike Patterson. The government said they were unable to change the rules on a live case.
Owen Patterson is found guilty - and they change the rules on a live case...
The rules dont apply to them - but if they do - they will just scrap them..
-
Some regular posters names missing from this thread. Something good on telly tonight maybe?
-
But it's NOT one isolated case BFYP.
1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/4m he didn't have came from to pay for his gold wallpaper. He had that investigated by a person he himself had specifically chosen for the task.
2) The independent enquiry that found Patel to have bullied a staff member into resigning. Johnson said, no, Patel isnt a bully and refused to take any other action.
3) The cross party Russia Report that was incredulous that Johnson wasn't ordering an investigation into meddling in our elections. Johnson ignored it.
4) The Tory MP guilty of persistent sexual harassment. No action.
There's a pattern. No action will be taken in any circumstances that points the finger at the Tory Party. So they can literally do what they want.
And the biggest two fingers of all? Johnson has appointed at ex-Bullingdon Club chum as an ethics adviser!
I don't disagree. It's not the point I was trying to make. When faced with the decision in 3 years time will voters care about this all that much or other things?
I know what I'm interested in and it's very different to the next person.
I don't at all like much of this indeed I don't like much of many politicians in all parties.
-
I’m bereft of words with this scandal. How many more nails can they get in this Tory coffin lid. Waiting for the indefensible to be defended by a few on here, I’m sure this is what they voted for….
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
-
I’m bereft of words with this scandal. How many more nails can they get in this Tory coffin lid. Waiting for the indefensible to be defended by a few on here, I’m sure this is what they voted for….
Theres a few missing in action tonight
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down by the X party inquiry.
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the party inquiry.
that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the party inquiry.
that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case
Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?
-
In fairness, hats off to the 13 Tory MPs who had the guts to vote against their party on this one.
I wonder which way Don Valley arse licker voted, in fact without looking I know which way he will have voted
Just checked and yes he voted for it as expected, again Don Valley what have you voted for?
I saw an early afternoon news report which clearly showed that the Don Valley MP had voted for it.
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the party inquiry.
I think with the independent committee using the word Egregious, instead of something most people will relate to like ‘utterly f**king shameful’ will see this scandal ignored by those who choose to.
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the party inquiry.
that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case
Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?
He hasn't said their findings are wrong for this case?
-
While the rules do need changing as you should have the right to appeal it should not have happened until after this case
Do they? why haven't they used any of the previous 11 years to do that?
I don't know ask them!
But yes you should have a right of appeal in my opinion, do you not think?
In a court of law appeals are often refused where the evidence is so overwhelming and there are no grounds, appeals are denied. The evidence in this case is all there and the offence being egregious was why this little used penalty was handed down bt the party inquiry.
that does not mean it is right, as said I think there should be a appeal process but it should not come in before this case
Ok, present your evidence, tell me why, after looking at the report and the findings you think they have erred?
He hasn't said their findings are wrong for this case?
I stand corrected DO, ok bp tell us why a rarely used penalty or procedure should be changed.
-
These actions in Parliament today were perfectly summed up by someone online today. He said the rules are in place to protect the powerful without binding them to follow the rules, while binding the weak to follow the rules without protecting them.
In that sense, I do understand why people have kicked against "The Elite".
But the genius of The Elite has been to direct folks' ire away from them and towards people who are actually on their side.
It's a tragedy of Homeric proportion.
-
There is another aspect to this which is not being discussed in the media.
The punishment that Paterson would have received was a 30 day suspension.
So break the rules, take large payments for pushing commercial interests, trouser over £100k for your trouble.......when you might, on the off chance, be called out, go on "gardening leave" for a month!
To me, that just sums up the hole we are in with these wazzocks.
It doesn't matter if the wrong un' is one of yours, a Paterson or a Mandelson, it is the actions which are in question.
-
The irony is that it looks like Johnson has got his party to approve a change that means that many of his own misdemeanors can now be waved through.
Ever felt used Mr Paterson?!
-
The irony is that it looks like Johnson has got his party to approve a change that means that many of his own misdemeanors can now be waved through.
Ever felt used Mr Paterson?!
I wouldn't think that paterson who is attempting to blame the umpire for his partners death instead of his own corrupt behaviour would give a shit BH.
-
These actions in Parliament today were perfectly summed up by someone online today. He said the rules are in place to protect the powerful without binding them to follow the rules, while binding the weak to follow the rules without protecting them.
In that sense, I do understand why people have kicked against "The Elite".
But the genius of The Elite has been to direct folks' ire away from them and towards people who are actually on their side.
It's a tragedy of Homeric proportion.
Not as tragic as when he got home from work to find no Duff in the fridge.
-
Kwasi Kwarteng on R4 this morning.
Interviewer pointed out several of the examples of corrupt behaviour that have been listed in this thread. He asked if there was a single example of where this Govt had taken action on breach of ethical standards.
Have a guess what Kwarteng said.
No, go on. Have a guess...
He said (and I shit you not) "We delivered Brexit."
-
Shambolic shameful & s***y
Paterson was bang to rights - most people CANT defend what he did - and instead "question" the procedure itself [as in he had no right to appeal]
Fine but he and every other MP knows there exists NO right to appeal - if you spend 2 years under investiation you can protest during that time surely - so surely he should abide by those rules
Sad as it was for his Wife who killed herself due to this process [Paterson said], in Court people would say "calls for speculation" - that is unproven. IF true did he think before raking the money in " I had better not do this in case I get caught and the stress might be detrimental to my family"
No feathered his own nest 100 per cent - and clearly 100 per cent guilty
Amazing he also got to vote on the Amendment - as he was allowed - and how amazing/ironic it could have been if it was carried by just one vote - his
Im glad Johnson cant call a Vote of Confidence in him and his Party [with an amendment by Mogg and allowed by Speaker that if he wins the Tories Govern forever] Why not they have corrupted every other thing they have touched
Broken my promise to myself to avoid commenting on Off-topic Politics so off back to Twitter - bye
-
I wonder why folk think all MPs are as bad as each other?
Nope....I can't think.
-
Meanwhile, Kuenssberg continues in her career as a Tory apologist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1455864027968647169
This is simply appalling journalism.
The case "dragged on" because Paterson repeatedly asked for and was granted more time to put his case.
-
The Guardian has kindly put together a useful list of:
Owen Paterson: his claims and how they stack up in analysis
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis
-
Paterson now calls for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to quit and Kwasi Kwarteng agrees with him. It's sleaze on steroids:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-paterson-tory-mp-resign-b1951220.html
-
Well, as someone once said, there's no point in having a revolution if you don't shoot the other side after you've won.
-
Paterson now calls for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to quit and Kwasi Kwarteng agrees with him. It's sleaze on steroids:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-paterson-tory-mp-resign-b1951220.html
Paterson has said he would do the same again, that is a massive two fingers to everyone
-
So his defence is that he was merely contacting ministers to alert them about potential public health issues. Issues which had been raised by the companies who paid him, and which referred to practices by their competitors.
But here's a thing. Surely if an MP hears about a serious public health threat, they have a duty to bring that to the attention of the authorities? Isn't that part of their job? Why do they need to be paid £111,000 per year to do that...by companies who stand to gain massive financial benefit by bringing this to ministers' attention?
-
this
Paterson’s claim: He made approaches to government bodies about two firms, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, which employed him as a consultant. The MP said he was acting as a whistleblower in raising concerns about milk and pork standards and that this meant he could claim an exemption from the rules regarding paid advocacy because he was raising a “serious wrong”.
Watchdog response: While this excuse would have been permissible for an initial approach, Patterson’s investigators said it did not cover his follow-up letters and meetings. “What might have been permissible in a single exceptional case, became Paterson’s standard practice,” said the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, adding that it “stretches credulity to suggest that 14 approaches to ministers and public officials were all attempts to avert a serious wrong rather than to favour Randox and Lynn’s, however much Paterson may have persuaded himself he is in the right.”
The committee agreed. It said Paterson’s follow-up approaches “sought to promote Randox products” by praising their “superior technology” and that he promoted other unrelated products from the company. “These were all attempts to confer a benefit on Randox, to whom he was a paid consultant,” it found. “At best, Paterson was relying on an exemption he thought probably existed but of whose terms he was unsure. At worst, Paterson was knowingly in breach of the lobbying rules.”
The committee also agreed that Paterson’s attempts to get one of Lynn’s Country Foods’ competitors to relabel their product so as not to compete with Lynn’s own nitrite-free goods, as well his asking for this to be promoted in the press, was not incidental.
Paterson was paid more than £100,000 for his work for Randox and Lynn’s, and the committee was clear. “The paid advocacy rule does not distinguish between lobbying for good causes and lobbying for bad causes. It only applies to lobbying for reward or consideration.” It added that Paterson “went beyond presenting evidence of a serious wrong” in his follow-up approaches to the Food Standards Agency about milk testing.
-
They've had to row back on this.
Basically they accept they have to have cross party agreement on any changes.
-
Mogg proposing "full fat retreat" or u turn
They will now introduce a Bill to uphold Patersons 30 day suspension - and it will be upheld. Hope his Constituency now deselect him with a fanfare as Neil Hamilton got when he was caught with his "brown envelopes"
Then they have to act to get opposition to come back onside with cross party support
Spun by Sleeze-Bogg but an enormous u turn not my worde but those of Tory MPs queuing up to say it on SKY
-
Tony Diver, twitter:
Feeling in gvt is that Owen Paterson's media round last night was far too strong and undermined the support Tories had given him yesterday.
There is talk now of Paterson dealing with the lobbying allegations himself...by fighting a by-election to get a new mandate from voters.
-
:Patterson has just resigned as an MP
-
This U-turn is potentially very serious for Johnson.
The real driver here has been his determination to emasculate the Parliamentary watchdogs. he wanted to scuttle the Standards Committee, but his real target has been the Electoral Commission.
Why?
Because if it decides to properly investigate the funding of his flat work, it has the power to prosecute for perjury people who lie to it.
Johnson has been reported as planning to replace the key people in the Electoral Commission with his own appointees. Much harder for him to get away with that now they whole can of worms of corruption has been opened.
If Labour has any sense, they will go for Johnson's throat and scream that the EC investigation into his flat has to go ahead now.
-
CON: (+14)
-
As well as the financed holiday in Marbella by the Goldsmith clan
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
-
There is a need for transparency. In parliament, in everything, in the media, anywhere.
There should always be a clear announcement that these views are paid for.
-
Thinking about this whole shitshow, it's hard to know what reflects worse on Johnson .
The fact that he thought he could get away with such an outrageous show of contempt.
Or the fact that he hasn't got the balls to see it through once he's started.
The first shows that he's a would-be demagogue.
The second shows that he's a coward.
We Brits should all ponder on the first.
I'm sure there are numerous unfriendly foreign leaders taking lessons about the second.
-
Nothing new about fraud in the HOC.
The PPE theft, Arcuri, the referendum, expenses .
The Tories are flush with dirty money, like our country & it’s tax avoidance havens are. We are the bank for criminals & tax dodgers.
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
The only reason he's had a 'rough time' is that he decided to break the rules on many occasions knowing full well what penalty could be incurred.
Sounds as though he's entitled or really thick to me.
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
The only reason he's had a 'rough time' is that he decided to break the rules on many occasions knowing full well what penalty could be incurred.
Sounds as though he's entitled or really thick to me.
Really? The guys wife died, I'd call that pretty tough.
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
The only reason he's had a 'rough time' is that he decided to break the rules on many occasions knowing full well what penalty could be incurred.
Sounds as though he's entitled or really thick to me.
Really? The guys wife died, I'd call that pretty tough.
Yes it is, so I guess he should have thought about her health more.
-
All an attempt from No10 to keep Boris out of the firing line. Trouble is the hunters are getting itchy trigger fingers
-
All an attempt from No10 to keep Boris out of the firing line. Trouble is the hunters are getting itchy trigger fingers
He told his MP's to vote for something many of them didn't want to do. Which has led to them getting hundreds of emails and letters from constituents saying how disgusted they are at what they voted for - only for the Johnson to say less than 24 hours later that what they voted for isn't going to happen! How to make friends and influence people.
-
That's the problem when one follows a blimp, the direction changes with the wind.
-
All an attempt from No10 to keep Boris out of the firing line. Trouble is the hunters are getting itchy trigger fingers
He told his MP's to vote for something many of them didn't want to do. Which has led to them getting hundreds of emails and letters from constituents saying how disgusted they are at what they voted for - only for the Johnson to say less than 24 hours later that what they voted for isn't going to happen! How to make friends and influence people.
Like when he trotted ministers out to support Hancock. When the whole world knew his position was untenable.
Or when he had them support Cummings when he was obviously toxic.
This will have sharpened the knives that will be unsheathed one day soon.
-
All an attempt from No10 to keep Boris out of the firing line. Trouble is the hunters are getting itchy trigger fingers
He told his MP's to vote for something many of them didn't want to do. Which has led to them getting hundreds of emails and letters from constituents saying how disgusted they are at what they voted for - only for the Johnson to say less than 24 hours later that what they voted for isn't going to happen! How to make friends and influence people.
Like when he trotted ministers out to support Hancock. When the whole world knew his position was untenable.
Or when he had them support Cummings when he was obviously toxic.
This will have sharpened the knives that will be unsheathed one day soon.
Or the dumping of raw sewage in the sea and rivers which they also u-turned on after a public outcry a day later.
It happens so frequently that he may very well be struggling for support on the next controversial issue - and it will be soon because this is Johnson.
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
The only reason he's had a 'rough time' is that he decided to break the rules on many occasions knowing full well what penalty could be incurred.
Sounds as though he's entitled or really thick to me.
Really? The guys wife died, I'd call that pretty tough.
The fact he's prepared to make public claim that the inquiry was the cause of his wife's suicide - if that is even true - only adds to the evidence of what a lowlife he truly is. He really thinks he'll get sympathy from the public when the whole shit show is down to his actions and his alone - persistently lobbying in contravention of the parliamentary rules. Yet we have somebody on here willing to give him a pass.
-
Common sense came from the government at last. It's obvious things can better and it's more than obvious it shouldn't have taken this case to push for change, all done the very wrong way and potentially damaging.
I do think Paterson's had a rough time and he has some sympathy, but lobbying is a dangerous game and difficult to control, which he's taken more than a chance on and been very well rewarded for. Where's the anti bribery line vs ensuring MP's aren't just full time politicians - very difficult one. Maybe perhaps we pay our MPs more and make the paid elements totally illegal. It is right for companies to make their views heard, very questionable that MPs do it - the same can be said for any entity, charities, unions etc.
The only reason he's had a 'rough time' is that he decided to break the rules on many occasions knowing full well what penalty could be incurred.
Sounds as though he's entitled or really thick to me.
Really? The guys wife died, I'd call that pretty tough.
Agree that is the very definition of rougg and "way beyond" - especially as she killed herself. Paterson and many others among his supporters attempted to link the 2 but as I posted above
Sad as it was for his Wife who killed herself due to this process [Paterson said], in Court people would say "calls for speculation" - that the link is unproven.
IF it were true did he think before raking the money in " I had better not do this in case I get caught and the stress might be detrimental to my family"
Some Tory grandee was savaging the Party, Johnson but mainly Paterson of whom he said " what was he thinking - as an MP before you act just imagine what the Newspapers would say and if its bad just DONT do it
-
As ever Marina Hyde sums the whole episode up perfectly:
An edifying week in the government of Britain, a country run by the third prize in a competition to build Winston Churchill out of marshmallows. Yup, this man is our sorry lot: this pool-float Targaryen, this gurning English Krankie cousin, this former child star still squeezing himself into his little suit for coins. The sole bright spot for Boris Johnson is that furious Tory MPs are currently only comparing him to the nursery rhyme Duke of York. Still, give it time.
On, then, to the unforced blunderrhoea of the Owen Paterson affair and its fallout. The sheer full-spectrum shitshow of it makes sense when you understand two things: the Carl von Clownewitzes behind the government’s shameful “strategy” for sweeping aside a vital democratic check on corruption; and the fact that for Johnson, none of it was to do with Owen Paterson. The departing MP for North Shropshire was simply useful for the prime minister’s personal goals – until he wasn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/05/owen-paterson-boris-johnson-standards-commissioner
-
It's a tragedy for the Paterson family and one that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
But I'd just draw attention to this article in the Mail in which Owen Paterson made no mention of the supposed effect of the case on his wife:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9204559/MP-Owen-Paterson-believes-catching-coronavirus-affected-wifes-mental-health.html
-
So get this.
One of the companies that Paterson says were paying him just to be a good citizen, and not to lobby on their behalf, was awarded a £133m contract to provide COVID test equipment before officials looked into the case and judged that the company wasn't capable of fulfilling the contract.
It's happening right in front of your eyes. The Banana Republicisation of the UK.
-
Yep contracts for mates and donors, nothing this govt is real, those engineers at the cereal factory they are trying to bounce and re-hire, where does that fit in with the new high tech high pay vision.
-
The Government are shooting themselves in the foot every week but where is a viable alternative to take their place. If there was a general election tomorrow i'll bet you they'd still win it. They know this so don't care what anyone thinks because Labour are unelectable. It's all about the least worst option in many people's eyes.
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
-
Standards debate today, the Govt benches are nearly empty, that shows what they thunk about standards
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
It's not policies, BST, it's Keith.
That's what makes them unelectable.
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
It's not policies, BST, it's Keith.
That's what makes them unelectable.
Whereas it's fine to have Johnson as PM because...?
-
What are the odds on Paterson getting a peerage in the New Year's Honours?
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
It's not policies, BST, it's Keith.
That's what makes them unelectable.
Whereas it's fine to have Johnson as PM because...?
I'm not saying it's fine. In fact, I'm not convinced he's certain to lead the Tories into the next GE.
What I'm saying is that not enough people will vote for Starmer. He's got too much baggage, particularly in the North and North-East.
-
And don’t forget all the infighting in the LP itself.
They aren’t all pulling in the same direction so I don’t know how they can attract enough votes to win a GE.
-
And don’t forget all the infighting in the LP itself.
They aren’t all pulling in the same direction so I don’t know how they can attract enough votes to win a GE.
I thought they were all the same hound?, like coppers are are the same, teachers all the same etc
-
I wont vote for Keir Starmer but I will vote for these people becaue they are more honest - classy:
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1457046898603331584
-
What are the odds on Paterson getting a peerage in the New Year's Honours?
Only if he pays £3m like the other Tory donors that have bought peerages.
-
What are the odds on Paterson getting a peerage in the New Year's Honours?
Only if he pays £3m like the other Tory donors that have bought peerages.
Nicky Morgan?
-
What are the odds on Paterson getting a peerage in the New Year's Honours?
Only if he pays £3m like the other Tory donors that have bought peerages.
Nicky Morgan?
I was joking.
-
Meanwhile the Tories are tanking in the polls after the Paterson affair. The ten polls immediately before Patersongate had them on average 5% ahead. The five since have them on average 1% ahead. Closest the polls have been all year.
Those left of centre folk who insist they will throw their vote away on the Greens have some serious thinking to do. Would you honestly vote in a way that guarantees Johnson another term?
-
What are the odds on Paterson getting a peerage in the New Year's Honours?
Only if he pays £3m like the other Tory donors that have bought peerages.
Nicky Morgan?
I was joking.
I wish I was.
-
Polls at this stage mean nothing, BST.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
I personally doubt whether leadership of both parties will remain the same going into the next GE.
Too much water to flow under the bridge first.
That said, Bozo would be very foolish to give Paterson a peerage before then.
Optics, and all that!
-
Albie.
Of course things can change very quickly in the polls. Which emphasises how ridiculous it has been for prominent people on the Left to gleefully point out how far behind Labour has been for much of the year.
I'm sure you'll also know how important momentum (sic) can be in politics too. Worth pondering, no?
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
It's not policies, BST, it's Keith.
That's what makes them unelectable.
Well if you say so.
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
It's not policies, BST, it's Keith.
That's what makes them unelectable.
Hmm.
Since June when the Conservatives were at 46% and Labour at 30% the polls have narrowed to 37% and 33% respectively. Closer still if you believe the polling over the weekend.
This coincides with politicians getting out among the public and being able to hold proper party conferences. Something that Starmer hadn't previously been able to do since being elected Labour leader.
-
The Daily Express and Daily Mail have turned on Boris in recent weeks, I think that's largely contributed to their decline.
-
They only turned on Johnson last Wednesday. And not before time.
Starmer lacks charisma but to put him in the same bracket as Corbyn - who genuinely was unelectable - is a tad harsh.
-
Meanwhile the Tories are tanking in the polls after the Paterson affair. The ten polls immediately before Patersongate had them on average 5% ahead. The five since have them on average 1% ahead. Closest the polls have been all year.
Those left of centre folk who insist they will throw their vote away on the Greens have some serious thinking to do. Would you honestly vote in a way that guarantees Johnson another term?
Next time around the Conservatives will loose a lot of their working class votes to the Reform Party. Now Brexit is done there's no longer any need to vote for them.
-
They only turned on Johnson last Wednesday. And not before time.
Starmer lacks charisma but to put him in the same bracket as Corbyn - who genuinely was unelectable - is a tad harsh.
This is the thing though, we don't want an all singing and dancing PM, the politics of running the country should be in the background until election time. Running the country should be the same as running a super large council or business where we hardly know the names of those at the top. All they need to do is make decisions that benefit the majority and keep their sticky fingers off public money.
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
Before you look at any policies you only have to look at the people. To Joe Bloggs they don't even look or sound like they should be in Government. Many of them just come over as uneducated Gobshites. You might not like it but i'm sure that's how they appear to voters in say the likes of Herefordshire. There's more to Britain than a few Northern towns where it's ok to come across that way. By the way i'm not sticking up for the Conservatives here because many of them come across just as bad in the opposite end of the spectrum. Angela Rayner for example.
-
AL
So let me get this right.
Boris Johnson is PM. So bucths logic, people have looked at him and said "Yep. He looks like PM material. Haven't booked at the policies yet, but having looked at the leader, I am prepared to vote Tory "
But that argument doesn't work for Starmer and Labour?
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
Before you look at any policies you only have to look at the people. To Joe Bloggs they don't even look or sound like they should be in Government. Many of them just come over as uneducated Gobshites. You might not like it but i'm sure that's how they appear to voters in say the likes of Herefordshire. There's more to Britain than a few Northern towns where it's ok to come across that way. By the way i'm not sticking up for the Conservatives here because many of them come across just as bad in the opposite end of the spectrum. Angela Rayner for example.
I mean you're not wrong but it's horrific that there's people out there that are against child poverty, which has been brought on my austerity, are for taxing the top 5% a bit extra, are for progressive policies but "nah Boris looks jolly and makes me laugh so he gets my vote".
-
AL
So let me get this right.
Boris Johnson is PM. So bucths logic, people have looked at him and said "Yep. He looks like PM material. Haven't booked at the policies yet, but having looked at the leader, I am prepared to vote Tory "
But that argument doesn't work for Starmer and Labour?
I'm speaking in general terms looking at the whole. Boris is a one off. He is where he is because he promised Brexit and people were sick of being fannied about over the whole issue. To be fair he did what he said, other than that he's full of shit. I voted Conservative for that reason and also our local MP seems to be a decent sort who always replies to my queries. Personally i'm also not that keen on Starmer either. As it stands at the moment i would vote for either the Reform Party or the SDP. The Tories are coming over as spivs and Labour too much looney left.
On a different note i had to laugh that BJ couldn't get back to the House yesterday because of the train timetables but was able to fly back from COP26 for a piss up with his mates the other day. It's actions like this that will see his 80 seat majority go down the u bend.
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
Before you look at any policies you only have to look at the people. To Joe Bloggs they don't even look or sound like they should be in Government. Many of them just come over as uneducated Gobshites. You might not like it but i'm sure that's how they appear to voters in say the likes of Herefordshire. There's more to Britain than a few Northern towns where it's ok to come across that way. By the way i'm not sticking up for the Conservatives here because many of them come across just as bad in the opposite end of the spectrum. Angela Rayner for example.
I mean you're not wrong but it's horrific that there's people out there that are against child poverty, which has been brought on my austerity, are for taxing the top 5% a bit extra, are for progressive policies but "nah Boris looks jolly and makes me laugh so he gets my vote".
It's probably true though.
Obviously no one wants child poverty, but is the answer just to give some irresponsible parents a few quid more to spend on fags?
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
Before you look at any policies you only have to look at the people. To Joe Bloggs they don't even look or sound like they should be in Government. Many of them just come over as uneducated Gobshites. You might not like it but i'm sure that's how they appear to voters in say the likes of Herefordshire. There's more to Britain than a few Northern towns where it's ok to come across that way. By the way i'm not sticking up for the Conservatives here because many of them come across just as bad in the opposite end of the spectrum. Angela Rayner for example.
I mean you're not wrong but it's horrific that there's people out there that are against child poverty, which has been brought on my austerity, are for taxing the top 5% a bit extra, are for progressive policies but "nah Boris looks jolly and makes me laugh so he gets my vote".
Reminds me of a radio interview I heard with a redneck just before the 2000 US Election. He said "Al Gore seems like he has very good policies. But Dubya looks like a guy you could have a beer with, so yeah, he's got ma vote."
f**king democracy, eh?
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
-
AL
So let me get this right.
Boris Johnson is PM. So bucths logic, people have looked at him and said "Yep. He looks like PM material. Haven't booked at the policies yet, but having looked at the leader, I am prepared to vote Tory "
But that argument doesn't work for Starmer and Labour?
I'm speaking in general terms looking at the whole. Boris is a one off. He is where he is because he promised Brexit and people were sick of being fannied about over the whole issue. To be fair he did what he said, other than that he's full of shit. I voted Conservative for that reason and also our local MP seems to be a decent sort who always replies to my queries. Personally i'm also not that keen on Starmer either. As it stands at the moment i would vote for either the Reform Party or the SDP. The Tories are coming over as spivs and Labour too much looney left.
On a different note i had to laugh that BJ couldn't get back to the House yesterday because of the train timetables but was able to fly back from COP26 for a piss up with his mates the other day. It's actions like this that will see his 80 seat majority go down the u bend.
Won't the SDP be too left for you?
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
-
Which specific policies do Labour have that makes them unelectable, compared to ones the Tories have that make them electable?
Before you look at any policies you only have to look at the people. To Joe Bloggs they don't even look or sound like they should be in Government. Many of them just come over as uneducated Gobshites. You might not like it but i'm sure that's how they appear to voters in say the likes of Herefordshire. There's more to Britain than a few Northern towns where it's ok to come across that way. By the way i'm not sticking up for the Conservatives here because many of them come across just as bad in the opposite end of the spectrum. Angela Rayner for example.
I mean you're not wrong but it's horrific that there's people out there that are against child poverty, which has been brought on my austerity, are for taxing the top 5% a bit extra, are for progressive policies but "nah Boris looks jolly and makes me laugh so he gets my vote".
Reminds me of a radio interview I heard with a redneck just before the 2000 US Election. He said "Al Gore seems like he has very good policies. But Dubya looks like a guy you could have a beer with, so yeah, he's got ma vote."
f**king democracy, eh?
Well if everyone gets to vote you're obviously get some numbskulls, what's the alternative?
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
There's a YouGov poll on it too.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
Problem is AL, attitudes like this are used ruthlessly by right wing politicians to generalise. To justify benefit cuts at a time of falling real wages, putting hundreds of thousands on the breadline.
The use of food banks has exploded over the past decade. Do you reckon that is because the number of feckless people has increased that much?
-
It’s a shocking failure of government policy
-
AL
So let me get this right.
Boris Johnson is PM. So bucths logic, people have looked at him and said "Yep. He looks like PM material. Haven't booked at the policies yet, but having looked at the leader, I am prepared to vote Tory "
But that argument doesn't work for Starmer and Labour?
I'm speaking in general terms looking at the whole. Boris is a one off. He is where he is because he promised Brexit and people were sick of being fannied about over the whole issue. To be fair he did what he said, other than that he's full of shit. I voted Conservative for that reason and also our local MP seems to be a decent sort who always replies to my queries. Personally i'm also not that keen on Starmer either. As it stands at the moment i would vote for either the Reform Party or the SDP. The Tories are coming over as spivs and Labour too much looney left.
On a different note i had to laugh that BJ couldn't get back to the House yesterday because of the train timetables but was able to fly back from COP26 for a piss up with his mates the other day. It's actions like this that will see his 80 seat majority go down the u bend.
Won't the SDP be too left for you?
I could live with them. I would be ok with the immediate post war Labour Party.
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
I didn't say gross, I said lousy and unless you know who the what, where, how, why and when about the people you see, you don't really know do you.
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
It was Corbyn. No question.
Point is though, those people had no compunction voting for a man with a lifetime record of lying about anything and everything. By any possible rational measure, Johnson was no more suitable to be PM than Corbyn. Yet how many people switched from Tory to Labour because of Johnson?
-
That’s the issue though, image and perception over policy. We both know that unfortunately
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
Problem is AL, attitudes like this are used ruthlessly by right wing politicians to generalise. To justify benefit cuts at a time of falling real wages, putting hundreds of thousands on the breadline.
The use of food banks has exploded over the past decade. Do you reckon that is because the number of feckless people has increased that much?
Certainly a major factor but obviously not the whole picture.
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
It was Corbyn. No question.
Point is though, those people had no compunction voting for a man with a lifetime record of lying about anything and everything. By any possible rational measure, Johnson was no more suitable to be PM than Corbyn. Yet how many people switched from Tory to Labour because of Johnson?
Corbyn was seen as Che Geuvara's best mate and Joe Bloggs was annoyed that in their eyes the referendum result was trying to be ignored/overturned. BJ promised to sort Brexit and the combination of these two factors is IMO why he won. Everyone knows he's a BS merchant, but he's served his purpose so now he can go.
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
I didn't say gross, I said lousy and unless you know who the what, where, how, why and when about the people you see, you don't really know do you.
I dare say you haven't been in Donny town centre for a while. I'm not stupid and i know what i see.
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
I didn't say gross, I said lousy and unless you know who the what, where, how, why and when about the people you see, you don't really know do you.
I dare say you haven't been in Donny town centre for a while. I'm not stupid and i know what i see.
I didn't say you were stupid, I just said you don't know nd until you talk to them and find out you are biased by your prejudices.
-
Donny town centre is an absolute shit hole. Every time i go back to Donny to visit friends / family i always avoid going into town. It is so depressing.
If i have to nip in quick the fish market then i'm in and out again quick sharp. Growing up in Donny was horrible as it was always such an oppressive atmosphere in the town, especially that precinct where The Staff of Life, Netto and Jobcentre was near Southern Bus Station, but i thought it was supposed to have improved.
You can't change where you were born and raised but it would have been nice to have had a choice.
-
Food banks have increased in number by around 1100% since 2010 fact.
Only 15 out 100 people smoke in the UK fact.
''Unicef to feed hungry children in UK for first time in 70-year history''
''The UN agency, which is responsible for providing humanitarian aid to children worldwide, said the coronavirus pandemic was the most urgent crisis affecting children since the second world war.
A YouGov poll in May commissioned by the charity Food Foundation found 2.4 million children (17%) were living in food insecure households. By October, an extra 900,000 children had been registered for free school meals.
Unicef has pledged a grant of £25,000 to the community project School Food Matters, which will use the money to supply 18,000 nutritious breakfasts to 25 schools over the two-week Christmas holidays and February half-term, feeding vulnerable children and families in Southwark, south London, who have been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic''
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/16/unicef-feed-hungry-children-uk-first-time-history
-
fewer and fewer people in the UK smoke and it's another lousy generalisation to say that poor people spend their money on fags, but even if they do, so what?
I would have thought any responsible parent would prioritize a balanced diet for THEIR children over a packet of twenty B&H. Don't shoot the messenger i'm only saying what i see roaming around town. Also i did say 'some' irresponsible parents, so i wouldn't say it was a gross generalization.
I didn't say gross, I said lousy and unless you know who the what, where, how, why and when about the people you see, you don't really know do you.
I dare say you haven't been in Donny town centre for a while. I'm not stupid and i know what i see.
I didn't say you were stupid, I just said you don't know nd until you talk to them and find out you are biased by your prejudices.
I know you didn't say i was stupid. I was using it clarify that i know what type of people i'm looking at. Believe me, i'm no snob I was brought up in a council house, but we now have a group of people who are a world away from the 'working class' of the sixties and seventies. I'll probably get slaughtered on here (puts on tin hat) but there's a lot out there who you would not class as polite society, we all know the type. I think you are being a little naive about some of these people.
-
What are the characteristics of a snob?
-
What are the characteristics of a snob?
According to the dictionary:snob
a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and looks down on those regarded as socially inferior.
"her mother was a snob and wanted a lawyer as a son-in-law"
I'm working class, proud of it and wouldn't wish to be anything else. Thank you.
-
What are the characteristics of a snob?
According to the dictionary:snob
a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and looks down on those regarded as socially inferior.
"her mother was a snob and wanted a lawyer as a son-in-law"
I'm working class, proud of it and wouldn't wish to be anything else. Thank you.
Not sure you quite understand the concept but anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppv97S3ih14
-
What are the characteristics of a snob?
According to the dictionary:snob
a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and looks down on those regarded as socially inferior.
"her mother was a snob and wanted a lawyer as a son-in-law"
I'm working class, proud of it and wouldn't wish to be anything else. Thank you.
Not sure you quite understand the concept but anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppv97S3ih14
Ha ha. :) I still think you're being a bit naïve about some of these people. There are a lot, not all, but a lot who do not want to work and better themselves. If you can't or won't see it i'm not going to try and convince you.
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
It was Corbyn. No question.
Point is though, those people had no compunction voting for a man with a lifetime record of lying about anything and everything. By any possible rational measure, Johnson was no more suitable to be PM than Corbyn. Yet how many people switched from Tory to Labour because of Johnson?
Corbyn was seen as Che Geuvara's best mate and Joe Bloggs was annoyed that in their eyes the referendum result was trying to be ignored/overturned. BJ promised to sort Brexit and the combination of these two factors is IMO why he won. Everyone knows he's a BS merchant, but he's served his purpose so now he can go.
But that doesn't tie in with what you said before. You said that people look at personalities and fitness to be PM before they look at policies. Now you're saying everyone knew Johnson wasn't fit to be PM, but he had a policy that Brexit supporters liked.
With that in mind, why not look past what you think of Starmer's image and look at Starmer's policies?
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
There's a YouGov poll on it too.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour
Looking at that link I see that some people simply didn’t vote Labour because they didn’t like Corbyn.
Surely that seems reasonable then that some people voted Tory because they liked Johnson.
Why is it so unbelievable?
-
BST you campaigned door to door in 2019. What was your experience of reasons ppl had for not voting Labour?
It was Corbyn. No question.
Point is though, those people had no compunction voting for a man with a lifetime record of lying about anything and everything. By any possible rational measure, Johnson was no more suitable to be PM than Corbyn. Yet how many people switched from Tory to Labour because of Johnson?
Corbyn was seen as Che Geuvara's best mate and Joe Bloggs was annoyed that in their eyes the referendum result was trying to be ignored/overturned. BJ promised to sort Brexit and the combination of these two factors is IMO why he won. Everyone knows he's a BS merchant, but he's served his purpose so now he can go.
But that doesn't tie in with what you said before. You said that people look at personalities and fitness to be PM before they look at policies. Now you're saying everyone knew Johnson wasn't fit to be PM, but he had a policy that Brexit supporters liked.
With that in mind, why not look past what you think of Starmer's image and look at Starmer's policies?
I think it was a one off situation. Neither leader was a highly desirable choice for the electorate. I think a lot of people will look at the personalities, probably not the right thing to do you're right, but other than having to take an exam to get the right to vote we're probably stuck with it.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.
-
Apparently he needed to be seen walking round a Northern hospital without a mask on.
-
Oh, here we go. He succeeded
(https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/incoming/article22109921.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_JS250107230jpg.jpg)
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.
Total bottle job. If i screw up at work i go straight into my bosses office and own up to it face to face and take any consequences on the chin. I generally find this takes the heat out of the situation in any case.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.
Total bottle job. If i screw up at work i go straight into my bosses office and own up to it face to face and take any consequences on the chin. I generally find this takes the heat out of the situation in any case.
He did it before, when the Heathrow runway was being discussed in Parliament when he was Foreign Secretary. When Boris was Mayor he said he'd lie down in front of the of the bulldozers and stop them. To avoid having to now vote FOR it in Parliament (the alternative would have been to resign), he invented a reason and f**ked off to Afghanistan for just long enough for it to go through Parliament.
-
In the interests of balance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html
Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.
Total bottle job. If i screw up at work i go straight into my bosses office and own up to it face to face and take any consequences on the chin. I generally find this takes the heat out of the situation in any case.
He did it before, when the Heathrow runway was being discussed in Parliament when he was Foreign Secretary. When Boris was Mayor he said he'd lie down in front of the of the bulldozers and stop them. To avoid having to now vote FOR it in Parliament (the alternative would have been to resign), he invented a reason and f**ked off to Afghanistan for just long enough for it to go through Parliament.
Not very Churchillian behavior is it.
If the stormtroopers had come marching up Whitehall i couldn't have seen Churchill doing a bunk, however BJ would have been off like a rocket.
-
In the interests of balance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html
Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.
That link won’t be popular on here AL.
-
In the interests of balance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html
Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.
That link won’t be popular on here AL.
Why not? I've put links up showing both Labour and Conservative politicians in a bad light. No favouritism here. It doesn't matter be it red or blue.
-
In the interests of balance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html
Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.
That link won’t be popular on here AL.
Why not? I've put links up showing both Labour and Conservative politicians in a bad light. No favouritism here. It doesn't matter be it red or blue.
I know you have shown both lots there mate, perhaps they are all the same.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html
Oh dear.
I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.
Total bottle job. If i screw up at work i go straight into my bosses office and own up to it face to face and take any consequences on the chin. I generally find this takes the heat out of the situation in any case.
He's famous for his cowardice. He wants the world to love him. He's all bluff and bluster, but when someone calls him out, he hasn't got the balls to face up to them. You can see it in his face when he's put on the spot in Select Committee meetings. He looks like a 13 year old that's been caught having a fag and is getting a bollocking. All embarrassed resentment.
-
In the interests of balance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html
Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.
That link won’t be popular on here AL.
Why not? I don't see an issue with second jobs as long as they're not getting paid for dodgy contracts.
-
Shouldn't they be using all their time working for the benefits of their constituents?
I can't imagine it said on the ballot paper, vote for me but i'll only be working part time 'cause i've got a nice little earner on the side.
I'll try it tomorrow, 'Sorry guv can't come in today, this bloke down the road wants his bathroom tiling.'
-
Someones done some calculation
-
Paterson. That word that Angela Raynor said.
-
Shouldn't they be using all their time working for the benefits of their constituents?
I can't imagine it said on the ballot paper, vote for me but i'll only be working part time 'cause i've got a nice little earner on the side.
I'll try it tomorrow, 'Sorry guv can't come in today, this bloke down the road wants his bathroom tiling.'
They might need to keep their hand in in case they lose their seat and have to go back to work, but I don't think they should be paid for it, or if they are the money should go to a charity.
-
I wonder why Labour's Glorious leader Starmer refuses to endorse an outright ban on second jobs?
Maybe because he's earned a bob or two doing the odd gig?
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
lol
-
''Iain Duncan Smith accused of ‘brazen conflict of interest’ over £25,000 job
Ex-Tory leader chaired government taskforce that recommended new rules benefiting firm he was employed by''
the sleaze is in danger of spewing out over the floor
''Iain Duncan Smith is facing questions over his £25,000-a-year second job advising a multimillion-pound hand sanitiser company after he chaired a government taskforce that recommended new rules benefiting the firm''
Nearly 1/4 of tory mps have second jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-brazen-conflict-of-interest-over-25000-job
-
Pandora's Box is opening and it ain't to be closing again anytime soon now the nationals have finally grasped the nettle.
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
Here's a challenge for you.
Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.
-
It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.
The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.
It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.
Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.
Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?
-
It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.
The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.
It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.
Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.
Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?
I agree ban second jobs.
Paterson £500,000 over 5 years.
Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
Here's a challenge for you.
Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.
So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
Here's a challenge for you.
Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.
So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.
No, that's to do a BB
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
Here's a challenge for you.
Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.
So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.
Is a doctor doing weekend shifts in a hospital the same as a bloke advising a a foreign dependency how to be tax haven?
Is a bloke doing a one off speech - in which they may be promoting causes they are patrons of - the same as getting the government to change rules in favour of business based in tax havens they will benefit from?
Is what Ed Davey did ethical?
-
Here's another scandal where an MP doesn't meet the government's standards
''Britain’s youngest MP vows to donate more than half of salary to charity to ‘give back to labour movement’''
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/youngest-mp-salary-charity-workers-labour-nadia-whittome-a9246686.html
-
The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.
As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.
And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.
Here's a challenge for you.
Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.
So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.
No, that's to do a BB
And shite analogies like that are why it's a relief to be ignoring Hound's posts.
The issue with Paterson has nothing to do with him earning a second living. I want MPs to be highly talented people who can help British companies' and institutions' interests, and if they get paid reasonably for that, I've no problem at all with it. The red line is when, like with Paterson, they are being paid to badger ministers to give their paymasters an unfair advantage.
I'd have thought that was obvious, but as with so many arguments, it seems to go over the heads of the Self Righteous Brothers in here.
-
Even using my material now eh, BST?
Imitation. What a compliment!
-
Similarly, I'd have no problem with Sir Geoffrey Cox doing legal work for UK companies if it didn't interfere with his duties as an MP. I DO have an issue with him being paid the thick end of a million quid to advise the rulers of an overseas tax haven how to avoid corruption charges. And flying over there for several weeks, rather than deal with his constituents' issues.
Likewise, I have problems with Iain Duncan Smith heading a committee to determine COVID hand sanitiser rules, while being paid £25k by a hand sanitiser company that benefited from that committee's decisions.
It's simple if you stop and think about it. But still some folk seem to struggle with it because all MPs are the same aren't they?
-
It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.
The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.
It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.
Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.
Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?
Looks like LabourHub has taken that piece down Albie. What did it say?
-
Sydney,
"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"
No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.
Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.
That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.
Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.
The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62
Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.
-
Sydney,
"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"
No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.
Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.
That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.
Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.
The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62
Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.
Geoffrey Cox a member of the UK government is giving legal advice against the UK Government and has on occasions used his office within the HoP to conduct that legal advice, there is a clear conflict of interests there
-
Sydney,
"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"
No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.
Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.
That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.
Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.
The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62
Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.
How odd that they took the original story down within hours of posting it...
-
Sydney,
"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"
No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.
Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.
That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.
Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.
The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62
Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.
Paterson and Cox didn't exploit the rules - they broke them! Paterson 'egregiously' so as proven by the Standard's Comissioner and Committee - with Cox clearly doing what Paterson was found guilty of. Seems at least two more Tories may also have done so - but we shall have to wait and see about them.
Corbyn was right when he foresaw the potential conflict of interest with Starmer advising Mischon de Reya - and how the right-wing media would react - but its coming to something when advising a law firm specialising in human rights is a bad thing.
-
Sydney,
"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"
No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.
Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.
That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.
Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.
The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62
Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.
It appears that the conflict of interest was: ''The move was reported at the time as Sir Keir rejecting an offer to advise on the development of a training and development academy at Mishcon, on the grounds of other commitments''
So not advising their clients but being involved with the academy, but he accepted the ruling and stopped. My position is as I stated is that MPs should not have second jobs, unless as some have pointed out it is for good causes, is minimal in time and is not a conflict with their work as an MP nor a conflict with it.
-
No, the fundamental conflict of interest is between client confidentiality required of a lawyer, and the need for full transparency as an elected member of the HoC.
The two are incompatible imo, and cast doubt on the impartiality of political process.
That Corbyn had to lay down the law for Shadow Cabinet members underlines the point.
Starmer needed to be reminded of the policy position, having entered into discussions.
How would it work should a lawyer be advising a client with commercial interests in decisions of the UK authorities? Muddy waters, best avoided.
It is perfectly possible for external work to involve no conflict of interest.
I would still argue that external paid employment for MP's should be forbidden, to avoid the ambiguity that arises from representation of interests other than those of constituents.
-
No, the fundamental conflict of interest is between client confidentiality required of a lawyer, and the need for full transparency as an elected member of the HoC.
The two are incompatible imo, and cast doubt on the impartiality of political process.
That Corbyn had to lay down the law for Shadow Cabinet members underlines the point.
Starmer needed to be reminded of the policy position, having entered into discussions.
How would it work should a lawyer be advising a client with commercial interests in decisions of the UK authorities? Muddy waters, best avoided.
It is perfectly possible for external work to involve no conflict of interest.
I would still argue that external paid employment for MP's should be forbidden, to avoid the ambiguity that arises from representation of interests other than those of constituents.
Fair point Albie, I accept that.
-
What evidence is there of this, outside a "senior source said..." in a report that had since been removed?
-
The link is back up
https://archive.md/L0s62
-
No, that's an archive. The original link is dead.
-
What evidence is there of this, outside a "senior source said..." in a report that had since been removed?
Sky News story 2017
https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmer-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-brexit-law-firm-role-10960196
A senior aide to Corbyn at the time:
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1458456612398632961
-
Reading through those Twitter posts it appears that Starmer changed his story to try and cover his tracks.
-
Thanks Wilts.
What I don't get from that Twitter thread by an ex-Corbyn speechwriter is that Corbyn apparently blocked Starmer from working as an adviser to a legal firm in 2017, but in 2019/20, when Corbyn was still leader, Starmer did a small amount of work for them and declared it publicly.
I also don't get why the Left are pushing that angle with the impression that it is a similar failing as Paterson breaking Parliamentary rules and Cox jetting off to the Carribbean to advise tax haven bosses in legal action against the UK Govt. Almost as if...
-
No-one is pushing the angle that it is equivalent to the Paterson and Cox disgraces.
Those two are using their status as a credit card, and are looking to trouser the profit.
Starmer has not understand the key principle of maintaining clear blue water between activities.
Different problem, but potentially a minefield.
I don't want to write it out again so see my post to Sydney, previous page.
-
Albie
No-one?
The very person Wilts linked to (ex-Corbyn speechwriter) has said not a word about Paterson and Cox but has written a lengthy Twitter thread about Starmer. And quoted an ex-Tory minister on the topic.
Almost as if...
-
And as I say, the line that Corbyn saved Starmer from himself doesn't gel with the fact that Starmer DID do a small number of hours of work for that law firm after Corbyn (apparently - we are going on anonymous quotes) laid the law down.
-
That will be because he is clearly not discussing Paterson and Cox, is he?
Time for a lie down, BST.
The voices in your head are clamouring again, and you know what its like when your imaginary friend gets the upper hand.
You could end up looking like an extreme centrist trying any way to denigrate real socialists....nobody likes to see that!
-
Starmer's integrity is not and should not be on the line over this, I would back his integrity against 95% of tory members, collectively.
-
Is it possible to be an extreme centrist?
By their very nature centrists are not extreme.
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
:that:
-
Starmer's integrity is not and should not be on the line over this, I would back his integrity against 95% of tory members, collectively.
I wouldn’t expect anything else from you.
Whatever he had done.
Well done.
-
Starmer's integrity is not and should not be on the line over this, I would back his integrity against 95% of tory members, collectively.
I wouldn’t expect anything else from you.
Whatever he had done.
Well done.
bored are we? I wouldn't expect a more childish comment
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
Quoting anonymous sources.
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
Quoting anonymous sources.
Well he had the opportunity to deny it
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1458768047687282693
I will say again. I think you are fighting the wrong battle here.
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
Quoting anonymous sources.
Well he had the opportunity to deny it
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1458768047687282693
I will say again. I think you are fighting the wrong battle here.
Yep, agreed.
He isn’t the only one though.
Starmer's integrity is not and should not be on the line over this, I would back his integrity against 95% of tory members, collectively.
Completely expected from both of them.
-
Albie.
No. Like many others on the Left, he is very determinedly NOT discussing Paterson and Cox. But he IS throwing anonymous shit at Starmer.
Almost as if...
Anonymous - on a twitter thread under his own name? None of which Starmer has denied.
You are fighting the wrong battle here. Almost as if you had an agenda...
Quoting anonymous sources.
Well he had the opportunity to deny it
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1458768047687282693
I will say again. I think you are fighting the wrong battle here.
He's being accused by folk with an axe to grind and (in the big scheme of things) tiny influence. Any politician who felt the need to counter every accusation on Twitter would soon be tied down by a thousand silken threads.
As I say, the bigger question for me is why these people on the Left are consciously and deliberately trying to move the focus from egregious abuses by the Tories to what is at worst an issue of opinion in Labour's own ranks. But it was ever thus. The Left always did prefer internecine fights.
-
Meanwhile, in the latest episode of "They are all the same, them MPs" it turns out that currently 90 Tory MPs have second jobs. Compared to 3 Lab MPs (one of whom is a standby emergency doctor).
-
I thought this wasn't about MPs having second jobs?
-
I thought this wasn't about MPs having second jobs?
He probably forgot that he had written that.
However, I suppose it is something to bash the government with.
Those three Labour MPs aren’t doing anything wrong because there are only three of them.
It’s as if………
-
I thought this wasn't about MPs having second jobs?
It clearly is for some. as I said, for me it is a matter of scale, morality and legality.
-
Looks like the electorate see it as a matter of scale, morality and legality too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1459281591738540035
-
It's what happens when you step in your own shit I guess.
-
Looks like the electorate see it as a matter of scale, morality and legality too.
Billy speaks for the entire electorate 3 years before any GE through a Twitter random poll .
How low does the bar sit with all things Keith and Labour .
-
3 years to go before the next GE I'd suggest the polls are pretty meaningless myself .
I wouldn't underestimate Bunter personally .
-
All true Tyke. Which is why the mantra from the Left that Labour is unelectable under Starmer is nonsense. Anything can happen in the next few years. A month ago, the Tories were 5% ahead in the average polls. Today Labour are ahead from the first time since the vaccine programme began.
And the predictions are for a sharp hit to real pay in 2022. With that and the continuing stench of corruption around Johnson's mob, it's hard to see where an immediate reversal is coming from.
If folk like you would compromise, Labour could be up by double digits this time next year. That is, if you really want to see the Tories put on the back foot. Do you? Really?
-
3 years to go before the next GE I'd suggest the polls are pretty meaningless myself .
I wouldn't underestimate Bunter personally .
I wouldn't overestimate him either - or the polls.
There is a reason the Daily Mail have turned against him - and you don't survive very long as a Tory leader if the Mail don't like you and a load of MP's think they may be in danger.
-
Wilts, elections aren't won on wishful thinking.
-
All true Tyke. Which is why the mantra from the Left that Labour is unelectable under Starmer is nonsense. Anything can happen in the next few years. A month ago, the Tories were 5% ahead in the average polls. Today Labour are ahead from the first time since the vaccine programme began.
And the predictions are for a sharp hit to real pay in 2022. With that and the continuing stench of corruption around Johnson's mob, it's hard to see where an immediate reversal is coming from.
If folk like you would compromise, Labour could be up by double digits this time next year. That is, if you really want to see the Tories put on the back foot. Do you? Really?
I won't be voting for either of them Billy as both leaders and their party's are equally despicable in my view .
My view is obviously the key component given it's my vote .
The majority of people in this country deserve far better than what's currently on offer .
To have even the slightest chance of winning an election then Labour would have to be in the pockets of big business and more or less commit to not rocking the boat too much .
Compound that by having such an odious snake as leader of the Labour Party then that hardly inspires myself to what you term compromise .
Keith's shown no appetite to compromise and he's distanced himself as far as possible from the radical change Corbyn stood for despite a leadership campaign promising to do so .
I will play no part in a Labour Party playing the game for a sniff of power .
If Keith can show me over the next two to three years he's willing to be far more radical then I could be won over enough to vote for Labour .
As things stand today absolutely not .
-
All true Tyke. Which is why the mantra from the Left that Labour is unelectable under Starmer is nonsense. Anything can happen in the next few years. A month ago, the Tories were 5% ahead in the average polls. Today Labour are ahead from the first time since the vaccine programme began.
And the predictions are for a sharp hit to real pay in 2022. With that and the continuing stench of corruption around Johnson's mob, it's hard to see where an immediate reversal is coming from.
If folk like you would compromise, Labour could be up by double digits this time next year. That is, if you really want to see the Tories put on the back foot. Do you? Really?
I won't be voting for either of them Billy as both leaders and their party's are equally despicable in my view .
My view is obviously the key component given it's my vote .
The majority of people in this country deserve far better than what's currently on offer .
To have even the slightest chance of winning an election then Labour would have to be in the pockets of big business and more or less commit to not rocking the boat too much .
Compound that by having such an odious snake as leader of the Labour Party then that hardly inspires myself to what you term compromise .
Keith's shown no appetite to compromise and he's distanced himself as far as possible from the radical change Corbyn stood for despite a leadership campaign promising to do so .
I will play no part in a Labour Party playing the game for a sniff of power .
If Keith can show me over the next two to three years he's willing to be far more radical then I could be won over enough to vote for Labour .
As things stand today absolutely not .
From what you've posted it sounds like you only voted for labour once since you turned 18.
-
All true Tyke. Which is why the mantra from the Left that Labour is unelectable under Starmer is nonsense. Anything can happen in the next few years. A month ago, the Tories were 5% ahead in the average polls. Today Labour are ahead from the first time since the vaccine programme began.
And the predictions are for a sharp hit to real pay in 2022. With that and the continuing stench of corruption around Johnson's mob, it's hard to see where an immediate reversal is coming from.
If folk like you would compromise, Labour could be up by double digits this time next year. That is, if you really want to see the Tories put on the back foot. Do you? Really?
I won't be voting for either of them Billy as both leaders and their party's are equally despicable in my view .
My view is obviously the key component given it's my vote .
The majority of people in this country deserve far better than what's currently on offer .
To have even the slightest chance of winning an election then Labour would have to be in the pockets of big business and more or less commit to not rocking the boat too much .
Compound that by having such an odious snake as leader of the Labour Party then that hardly inspires myself to what you term compromise .
Keith's shown no appetite to compromise and he's distanced himself as far as possible from the radical change Corbyn stood for despite a leadership campaign promising to do so .
I will play no part in a Labour Party playing the game for a sniff of power .
If Keith can show me over the next two to three years he's willing to be far more radical then I could be won over enough to vote for Labour .
As things stand today absolutely not .
A true Trade Unionist would never vote, or not vote in your case to enable a Tory Govt
-
All true Tyke. Which is why the mantra from the Left that Labour is unelectable under Starmer is nonsense. Anything can happen in the next few years. A month ago, the Tories were 5% ahead in the average polls. Today Labour are ahead from the first time since the vaccine programme began.
And the predictions are for a sharp hit to real pay in 2022. With that and the continuing stench of corruption around Johnson's mob, it's hard to see where an immediate reversal is coming from.
If folk like you would compromise, Labour could be up by double digits this time next year. That is, if you really want to see the Tories put on the back foot. Do you? Really?
I won't be voting for either of them Billy as both leaders and their party's are equally despicable in my view .
My view is obviously the key component given it's my vote .
The majority of people in this country deserve far better than what's currently on offer .
To have even the slightest chance of winning an election then Labour would have to be in the pockets of big business and more or less commit to not rocking the boat too much .
Compound that by having such an odious snake as leader of the Labour Party then that hardly inspires myself to what you term compromise .
Keith's shown no appetite to compromise and he's distanced himself as far as possible from the radical change Corbyn stood for despite a leadership campaign promising to do so .
I will play no part in a Labour Party playing the game for a sniff of power .
If Keith can show me over the next two to three years he's willing to be far more radical then I could be won over enough to vote for Labour .
As things stand today absolutely not .
A true Trade Unionist would never vote, or not vote in your case to enable a Tory Govt
I think you'll find that Trade Unions and the Labour Party are two separate entities and have been for years .
The fairy tale of the third way saw to that .
The third way fairy tale that gave you 2008 .
The fairy tale that gave you the finance and service industry .
A race to the bottom for jobs in post industrial towns .
One of my favourite songs is " Won't be fooled again " by The Who .
I certainly won't be fooled again by a snotty middle class party who took my vote for granted and sneered at me for not wanting to remain in the EU .
It's a toss up who I hate the most , Tories or Labour .
So how that personally lends itself to enabling Tory governments is beyond me .
-
???????????????????????????????
-
If we're to believe what polls are saying during mid-term parliaments, then you can all get ready for Trump as President again in 2024.
-
I find it hilarious that when the polls favour the poster they are invariably deemed to be right but are derided when they don’t favour the posters views.
-
I find it hilarious that when the polls favour the poster they are invariably deemed to be right but are derided when they don’t favour the posters views.
Where did that happen hound?
-
I find it hilarious that when the polls favour the poster they are invariably deemed to be right but are derided when they don’t favour the posters views.
Hound when you dig down in to the weeds Labour probably have a one point lead over the Tories .
That in my opinion is how low the bar is now set although the Labour pant wetters clearly see it differently .
Any kind of alternative policy coupled with a solid leader who was capable would have Labour at least 10 points ahead as a minimum given the times we are currently living in .
The polls don't actually represent how poorly the government are doing they actually represent just how bad the opposition are .
-
pity you can't offer any alternative tyke, except your wailing.
-
Thinking about this tyke, it is surprising that Labour don’t have an insurmountable lead in the polls ………. given how bad the government are.
-
I think Hound's point is the opinion polls are only taken seriously by the Labour supporters on this forum when they swing in Labours favour but are regarded as inaccurate when they don't!
-
I think Hound's point is the opinion polls are only taken seriously by the Labour supporters on this forum when they swing in Labours favour but are regarded as inaccurate when they don't!
same applies to you then bb, show where and when.
-
Tyke.
"The times we are living in..."
You might have forgotten, but some truly exceptional things have happened, these past couple of years.
Johnson got four huge boosts over the past 24 months.
He won the 2019 Election, against the most shambolic Labour campaign in 36 years.
He got Brexit done. (Ok, he didn't really, but he signed a piece of paper saying he had.) That was a promise he'd made to people like you who wanted us out. And many of those people are firmly committed to him through thick and thin after that.
He got the initial "rally round the flag" boost in support when COVID first hit.
He got a boost when we rolled out a successful vaccination programme.
Those four events all lifted the Tories in the polls. Three of those four are happenings on a scale that are unprecedented in any of our memories.
The problem with saying the Opposition should be X% ahead is twofold.
1) It totally ignored that context.
2) In your case, it is predicated on assuming that if Labour was further to the Left, the country would fall inove with it. It's the fallacy of assuming that most people think like you. When imfact, maybe 15% of the country does.
Finally, yes, Labour is currently maybe 1% ahead in the polls. The point is that six weeks ago they were 6% behind. There's been a big shift in momentum.
Now of course, that may not persist. But it's unlikely, short of a successful war, that anything is going to come along to give Johnson the polling boosts that he's had for the past two years. We have a bloody tough 2022 coming up. And the longer Johnson stays on No10, the more opportunity he has for spectacularly showing us how unfit he is to be there.
Like I keep saying, folk on the Left were comforting themselves earlier this year by saying: Starmer is unelectable, therefore it's my duty to bring things to a head by deserting. That argument is blown out of the water by the current movement of the polls. The question for them now is: Do you want a broadly left of centre Govt? Or are you going to stick with the argument that if you can't have it your way, you might as well have Johnson?
-
I think Hound's point is the opinion polls are only taken seriously by the Labour supporters on this forum when they swing in Labours favour but are regarded as inaccurate when they don't!
If that's the argument, you two Self Righteous Brothers will have no problem finding loads of examples of people saying the polls are inaccurate when they swing against Labour.
In your own time...
-
pity you can't offer any alternative tyke, except your wailing.
Well it's remarkable that you'd introduce that in to this debate Sydney given the general consensus is nobody actually knows what the Labour Party of today actually stand for .
-
I think Hound's point is the opinion polls are only taken seriously by the Labour supporters on this forum when they swing in Labours favour but are regarded as inaccurate when they don't!
If that's the argument, you two Self Righteous Brothers will have no problem finding loads of examples of people saying the polls are inaccurate when they swing against Labour.
In your own time...
"Self Righteous Brothers", Eeh, I don't know how you think of them!
Of course, I never said there were "loads" of examples, simply because there aren't many examples where Labour have gained in the polls recently! But then you know that, don't you!
If I can be arsed to waste my time looking for examples I will, but meanwhile, I'll just wait until you do it again when Labour slip back in the next lot of opinion polls!
-
Tyke.
"The times we are living in..."
You might have forgotten, but some truly exceptional things have happened, these past couple of years.
Johnson got four huge boosts over the past 24 months.
He won the 2019 Election, against the most shambolic Labour campaign in 36 years.
He got Brexit done. (Ok, he didn't really, but he signed a piece of paper saying he had.) That was a promise he'd made to people like you who wanted us out. And many of those people are firmly committed to him through thick and thin after that.
He got the initial "rally round the flag" boost in support when COVID first hit.
He got a boost when we rolled out a successful vaccination programme.
Those four events all lifted the Tories in the polls. Three of those four are happenings on a scale that are unprecedented in any of our memories.
The problem with saying the Opposition should be X% ahead is twofold.
1) It totally ignored that context.
2) In your case, it is predicated on assuming that if Labour was further to the Left, the country would fall inove with it. It's the fallacy of assuming that most people think like you. When imfact, maybe 15% of the country does.
Finally, yes, Labour is currently maybe 1% ahead in the polls. The point is that six weeks ago they were 6% behind. There's been a big shift in momentum.
Now of course, that may not persist. But it's unlikely, short of a successful war, that anything is going to come along to give Johnson the polling boosts that he's had for the past two years. We have a bloody tough 2022 coming up. And the longer Johnson stays on No10, the more opportunity he has for spectacularly showing us how unfit he is to be there.
Like I keep saying, folk on the Left were comforting themselves earlier this year by saying: Starmer is unelectable, therefore it's my duty to bring things to a head by deserting. That argument is blown out of the water by the current movement of the polls. The question for them now is: Do you want a broadly left of centre Govt? Or are you going to stick with the argument that if you can't have it your way, you might as well have Johnson?
The only way Keith will be PM is if the Tories tank the economy .
All the other stuff going on is a complete side show .
The last government to tank the economy was the Labour Party in 2008 .
Sleaze didn't kill Major's government in the mid 90's but black Wednesday did .
If you are expecting some perfect storm that gets Keith elected as PM I'd suggest you think again Billy .
The Tory party is way more ruthless and cleverer than the opposition and will dump Bunter as they did Thatcher if they need to .
Never mind the Tories failings what have you got that's so special then bro ?
-
Tyke.
"The times we are living in..."
You might have forgotten, but some truly exceptional things have happened, these past couple of years.
Johnson got four huge boosts over the past 24 months.
He won the 2019 Election, against the most shambolic Labour campaign in 36 years.
He got Brexit done. (Ok, he didn't really, but he signed a piece of paper saying he had.) That was a promise he'd made to people like you who wanted us out. And many of those people are firmly committed to him through thick and thin after that.
He got the initial "rally round the flag" boost in support when COVID first hit.
He got a boost when we rolled out a successful vaccination programme.
Those four events all lifted the Tories in the polls. Three of those four are happenings on a scale that are unprecedented in any of our memories.
The problem with saying the Opposition should be X% ahead is twofold.
1) It totally ignored that context.
2) In your case, it is predicated on assuming that if Labour was further to the Left, the country would fall inove with it. It's the fallacy of assuming that most people think like you. When imfact, maybe 15% of the country does.
Finally, yes, Labour is currently maybe 1% ahead in the polls. The point is that six weeks ago they were 6% behind. There's been a big shift in momentum.
Now of course, that may not persist. But it's unlikely, short of a successful war, that anything is going to come along to give Johnson the polling boosts that he's had for the past two years. We have a bloody tough 2022 coming up. And the longer Johnson stays on No10, the more opportunity he has for spectacularly showing us how unfit he is to be there.
Like I keep saying, folk on the Left were comforting themselves earlier this year by saying: Starmer is unelectable, therefore it's my duty to bring things to a head by deserting. That argument is blown out of the water by the current movement of the polls. The question for them now is: Do you want a broadly left of centre Govt? Or are you going to stick with the argument that if you can't have it your way, you might as well have Johnson?
The only way Keith will be PM is if the Tories tank the economy .
All the other stuff going on is a complete side show .
The last government to tank the economy was the Labour Party in 2008 .
Sleaze didn't kill Major's government in the mid 90's but black Wednesday did .
If you are expecting some perfect storm that gets Keith elected as PM I'd suggest you think again Billy .
The Tory party is way more ruthless and cleverer than the opposition and will dump Bunter as they did Thatcher if they need to .
Never mind the Tories failings what have you got that's so special then bro ?
The ramblings of a jilted lover, labour are now to blame for the gfc
-
Tyke.
"The times we are living in..."
You might have forgotten, but some truly exceptional things have happened, these past couple of years.
Johnson got four huge boosts over the past 24 months.
He won the 2019 Election, against the most shambolic Labour campaign in 36 years.
He got Brexit done. (Ok, he didn't really, but he signed a piece of paper saying he had.) That was a promise he'd made to people like you who wanted us out. And many of those people are firmly committed to him through thick and thin after that.
He got the initial "rally round the flag" boost in support when COVID first hit.
He got a boost when we rolled out a successful vaccination programme.
Those four events all lifted the Tories in the polls. Three of those four are happenings on a scale that are unprecedented in any of our memories.
The problem with saying the Opposition should be X% ahead is twofold.
1) It totally ignored that context.
2) In your case, it is predicated on assuming that if Labour was further to the Left, the country would fall inove with it. It's the fallacy of assuming that most people think like you. When imfact, maybe 15% of the country does.
Finally, yes, Labour is currently maybe 1% ahead in the polls. The point is that six weeks ago they were 6% behind. There's been a big shift in momentum.
Now of course, that may not persist. But it's unlikely, short of a successful war, that anything is going to come along to give Johnson the polling boosts that he's had for the past two years. We have a bloody tough 2022 coming up. And the longer Johnson stays on No10, the more opportunity he has for spectacularly showing us how unfit he is to be there.
Like I keep saying, folk on the Left were comforting themselves earlier this year by saying: Starmer is unelectable, therefore it's my duty to bring things to a head by deserting. That argument is blown out of the water by the current movement of the polls. The question for them now is: Do you want a broadly left of centre Govt? Or are you going to stick with the argument that if you can't have it your way, you might as well have Johnson?
The only way Keith will be PM is if the Tories tank the economy .
All the other stuff going on is a complete side show .
The last government to tank the economy was the Labour Party in 2008 .
Sleaze didn't kill Major's government in the mid 90's but black Wednesday did .
If you are expecting some perfect storm that gets Keith elected as PM I'd suggest you think again Billy .
The Tory party is way more ruthless and cleverer than the opposition and will dump Bunter as they did Thatcher if they need to .
Never mind the Tories failings what have you got that's so special then bro ?
The ramblings of a jilted lover, labour are now to blame for the gfc
To be a jilted lover you'd have to be a lover to begin with .
That is something you'd have difficulty pinning on me personally .
Something I realised early on in life when Kinnock wasn't exactly enthusiastic in supporting the most important strike in UK history .
I knew the cards that were heading my way as a younger man .
Power beats principles .... Hmm .
I do respect people in the Labour Party way way more than any Tory you can come up with .
Glenda Jackson , Dennis Skinner would be very good examples .
Today Rayner says it how it is .
I can get behind that kind of talk .
-
So are labour responsible for the gfc as you suggest tyke?
-
Syd,
Labour were not to blame for the global financial crash, but they certainly failed to anticipate and take mitigation action early.
The real failing was in the management of the fall-out, where public financial support was not tied in to conditionality. No bankers faced the music, and were jailed for their role.
But the big error was not placing reform conditions on the banking sector.
For example, if they had been required to remove fossil fuels from their portfolio, we would be in better place now in responding to climate change.
BST once again recycles the myth that Tories won the
"2019 Election, against the most shambolic Labour campaign in 36 years".
In actual fact, the lowest Labour vote in modern times was that achieved by Gordon Brown in 2010, far lower than the number of votes for Labour in 2019.
The rationale to revert to historic unpopularity to win votes seems counter intuitive to me.....something different to that, and unlike the Tory offer, might offer a better prospect.
A lead in the polls, even shortly before an election, is a broad brush indicator of high variability. It does not translate directly into seats gained unless the national data translates into local voting patterns. It is possible for one party to have a polling lead, but win fewer seats than another depending upon where those votes express.
The whole discussion about polls is completely irrelevant if CoCo gets the sack before the next GE. Once the Mail start to move against him, the game is up......not just yet, but he will be culled in time for a rebrand.
The importance of Paterson and Cox is how quickly the Tories can disassociate from them....still time to do so!
-
I'll ask you then Albie, were labour responsible for the gfc?
-
Just answered that, Syd.
Please read before replying!
-
So are labour responsible for the gfc as you suggest tyke?
No they weren't totally responsible but they endorsed every part of it and they own it as much as any Thatcher free market thinking government .
It's pretty abhorrent to be honest .
Principles and power ?
-
Just answered that, Syd.
Please read before replying!
so labour, not to blame for the gfc were expected to do what no other country in the world did which was to anticipate the gfc and change the uk banking regulations in isolation and disadvantage the uk to such an extent the there would have been a capital exodus?
You may be forgetting the tory answer to the gfc, Austerity, where over 50000 of out country folk died.
-
Just answered that, Syd.
Please read before replying!
so labour, not to blame for the gfc were expected to do what no other country in the world did which was to anticipate the gfc and change the uk banking regulations in isolation and disadvantage the uk to such an extent the there would have been a capital exodus?
You may be forgetting the tory answer to the gfc, Austerity, where over 50000 of out country folk died.
The Global Financial Crash happened after 3 consecutive Labour election wins .
I'd respectively ask you own it and not distance yourself by offering up what happened afterwards .
You lost the 2010 GE on the strength of it .
Own the fecker for God's sake , your watch it happened .
End of .
-
Just answered that, Syd.
Please read before replying!
so labour, not to blame for the gfc were expected to do what no other country in the world did which was to anticipate the gfc and change the uk banking regulations in isolation and disadvantage the uk to such an extent the there would have been a capital exodus?
You may be forgetting the tory answer to the gfc, Austerity, where over 50000 of out country folk died.
The Global Financial Crash happened after 3 consecutive Labour election wins .
I'd respectively ask you own it and not distance yourself by offering up what happened afterwards .
You lost the 2010 GE on the strength of it .
Own the fecker for God's sake , your watch it happened .
End of .
Your comment makes absolutely no sense, ask yourself why the US where it all started or any other country didn't do anything, you're talking financial dribble. It would have taken massive action in the US and then other countries collectively to forestall or stop the gfc from occurring.
You can live in your bubble of fantasy but you can't change history. Put up some credible sources to support your theory.
The tory reply, 50000+ dead and reduced ability to pay off debt, and they are the money managers, are they not?
Have o look at this then get back to me.
https://countryeconomy.com/gdp?year=2007
-
Tyke.
I suppose WWII started on the Polish government's watch and they should own it?
-
Here's the thing Tyke, if you're such a financial genius and could predict what very few did, tell us what what will trigger the next financial crisis, when it will occur, what we should do now to avoid it and most importantly what are you doing about it?
Take your time.
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
-
Tyke.
I suppose WWII started on the Polish government's watch and they should own it?
So your not prepared to accept any responsibility towards the Labour government for something that cost the UK taxpayer £500bn and led to a recession that took 21 quarters to get back to pre - recession levels .
And they say Bunter doesn't take responsibility for his actions !!! .
-
Just answered that, Syd.
Please read before replying!
so labour, not to blame for the gfc were expected to do what no other country in the world did which was to anticipate the gfc and change the uk banking regulations in isolation and disadvantage the uk to such an extent the there would have been a capital exodus?
You may be forgetting the tory answer to the gfc, Austerity, where over 50000 of out country folk died.
The Global Financial Crash happened after 3 consecutive Labour election wins .
I'd respectively ask you own it and not distance yourself by offering up what happened afterwards .
You lost the 2010 GE on the strength of it .
Own the fecker for God's sake , your watch it happened .
End of .
Your comment makes absolutely no sense, ask yourself why the US where it all started or any other country didn't do anything, you're talking financial dribble. It would have taken massive action in the US and then other countries collectively to forestall or stop the gfc from occurring.
You can live in your bubble of fantasy but you can't change history. Put up some credible sources to support your theory.
The tory reply, 50000+ dead and reduced ability to pay off debt, and they are the money managers, are they not?
Have o look at this then get back to me.
https://countryeconomy.com/gdp?year=2007
It does make me laugh when they poll people on which party they think is better with specific topics, money management is usually one of them and the Tories always do better. Despite the Tories financially crippling us over the 9 years before Covid was even a thing. It's the reason we have Brexit. People had seen so many cuts to services that they were told the reason was the immigrants, that's the reason auntie Doris has to wait 3 hours at the hospital because of them Polish immigrants.
Then we let an idiot who doesn't even know what a customs union is decide how we'll be leaving the EU. We've been a shambles of a country going backwards for the last decade.
-
Here's the thing Tyke, if you're such a financial genius and could predict what very few did, tell us what what will trigger the next financial crisis, when it will occur, what we should do now to avoid it and most importantly what are you doing about it?
Take your time.
It doesn't take a genius to know that financial markets go tyts up from time to time given it's happened many times before .
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you lend thousands of pounds to people with a history of not paying it back then it's highly likely they won't indeed pay it back .
The first rule of governments is to protect its citizens from things that are highly likely to hurt them massively .
In this case financial regulations were the play to protect its citizens .
There wasn't any and the reason there wasn't any is because the Labour Party trumpeted free markets just as enthusiastically as any Thatcher government .
Something they should have been ideologically opposed to or at least had sound regulation in place .
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Any evidence to support that remarkable claim ? .
Membership of a far right group ?
A voting history for UKIP ?
Support of the Tory ERG ?
Here we are again with any criticism of the sacred cow that is the Labour Party replied by the waving of that card again .
What's wrong with you people ?
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Any evidence to support that remarkable claim ? .
Membership of a far right group ?
A voting history for UKIP ?
Support of the Tory ERG ?
Here we are again with any criticism of the sacred cow that is the Labour Party replied by the waving of that card again .
What's wrong with you people ?
You don't see it do you tyke, it's everyone else but you.
-
DO.
The Tories have been responsible for a string of self-inflicted economic disasters, caused by economically illiterate policy decisions.
1972 Barber Boom. They poured Govt money into an already strong economy. The result was an unsustainable boom, runaway inflation and subsequent collapse.
1981 Howe Budget. In the depths of a nasty recession, they made the mirror image mistake of cutting Govt spending and increasing interest rates. That turned the recession into a disaster with 4 million out of work and whole industries collapsing.
1988 Lawson Boom. Repeating Barber's error. With the economy finally recovering, Lawson made massive tax cuts. People spent the money. Inflation rocketed again. There was a crash and the 90-91 recession.
2010 Austerity. Once again, cutting spending in an economy in recession. Killing the recovery. Leading to the worst decade for growth and wages since the Napoleonic Wars.
Late 2020s Brexit. The only example in history of a country choosing to leave a trading pact that was beneficial to both sides. Resulting in what is looking like a permanent hit to our economic growth.
A string of textbook mistakes. The sort you are warned about in Economics 101. But the Tories have a reputation for economic competence. Primarily because the right wing press have never pushed the story above.
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Any evidence to support that remarkable claim ? .
Membership of a far right group ?
A voting history for UKIP ?
Support of the Tory ERG ?
Here we are again with any criticism of the sacred cow that is the Labour Party replied by the waving of that card again .
What's wrong with you people ?
You don't see it do you tyke, it's everyone else but you.
That’s lefties in a nutshell though Syd
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
I didn’t realise I had so much influence on people, my comments still stand
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
Filo gets on at people who attack the poster….. and then does it himself.
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
Filo gets on at people who attack the poster….. and then does it himself.
Grow up!
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
Filo gets on at people who attack the poster….. and then does it himself.
Grow up!
Classic response.
If the cap fits wear it pal.
It is there for all to see.
-
Tyke joined these debates masquerading as a leftie, gradually his comments have turned him into a far right loony, or was he always that?
Childish comments like that, Filo, is a massive reason why so many people are turning away from the Labour Party. The same condescending sneers that we saw over Brexit, and look what happened there.
Regarding the polls, you should be careful what you wish for. If the present trend continues, Bunter will be replaced by Sunak, who'll be a different kettle of fish for Keith to deal with.
Filo gets on at people who attack the poster….. and then does it himself.
Grow up!
Classic response.
If the cap fits wear it pal.
It is there for all to see.
Tell us what you think about the nutty theory that the British labour party were responsible for the worldwide gfc hound.
-
19 conservative mp's and 9 from Labour have benefited from the gambling industry to the tune of £225k according to something I've read tonight online in the Guardian .
As it's the Guardian I take it as read it must be true ....... When in Rome of course .
Seen as the Tories have significantly more mp's than Labour right now in parliament that pretty much makes them equal in this matter more or less in my opinion .
Two cheeks to the same ass ?
Who knew ??
-
I despise any MP who takes money from the gambling industry. But let's have some context. Only two took wages. Both Tory. Accounting for nearly £100k. The biggest by far being the son of our ex Dear Leader Pete Davies who was paid almost £60k to beat the drum for the bookies.
-
19 conservative mp's and 9 from Labour have benefited from the gambling industry to the tune of £225k according to something I've read tonight online in the Guardian .
As it's the Guardian I take it as read it must be true ....... When in Rome of course .
Seen as the Tories have significantly more mp's than Labour right now in parliament that pretty much makes them equal in this matter more or less in my opinion .
Two cheeks to the same ass ?
Who knew ??
Yeah tyke, I saw that.
However, you shouldn’t make a fuss about it coz it’s ok for most of them coz two were more complicit than the others.
How many wrongs do make a right?
-
''Six top beneficiaries (salaries and hospitality from casinos and bookmakers)
Philip Davies (Con): £58,675 (£8,695 hospitality, £49,980 wages)
Laurence Robertson (Con): £33,306.60 (£9,306.60 hospitality, £24,000 wages)
Scott Benton (Con): £7,495 (hospitality)
Nigel Adams (Con): £7,417.14 (hospitality)
Aaron Bell (Con): £6,955.60 (hospitality)
Esther McVey (Con): £6,094.60 (hospitality)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/15/almost-225000-in-wages-and-freebies-taken-from-gambling-industry-by-28-mps
-
Does the lack of Labour mps with 2nd jobs just prove how work shy they are?? (Kidding)
-
Does the lack of Labour mps with 2nd jobs just prove how work shy they are?? (Kidding)
No they cover their tracks better (also kidding)
-
Does the lack of Labour mps with 2nd jobs just prove how work shy they are?? (Kidding)
No one is more work shy than the PM (not kidding)
-
And still it keeps coming.
Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi has been paid over £1m by a Kurdish oil company but didn't declare the amount because it was channelled through his consultancy company.
As I say, I've no problem with MPs doing limited amounts of external work that benefits British people or interests. I do wonder how on earth someone can do £1m of work for a foreign company and find time to be an MP.
-
Another day, another Tory MP muppet comes into the limelight: https://twitter.com/drum998/status/1460525900232110080
-
He's a local councillor to be fair, rather than an MP, but that is beneath disgusting.
In his apology apparently:
1) He's really, really sorry.
2) It was a prank. Banter.
3) It wasn't him what done it, it was a friend.
4) It wasn't him what done it, his account was "compromised."
So, basically, he's a bell and AND a liar.
-
It was a funny meme mind
-
He can’t even spell apologise correctly or did someone else send that as well?
-
It was a funny meme mind
It is if your gut reaction to an attempted terrorist attack on Remembrance Day is "Let's make a political joke."
-
Totally out of character for me but I really do feel sorry for you at times BST, the world to you must seem such a dark and bleak place, is there anything you’re not outraged by? It was funny
-
The world is fine Ldr. Problem is just a few of the people in it.
-
So, two weeks ago Paterson was innocent and Johnson wanted to get rid of the watchdog.
Now he wants to ban all MPs working as consultants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59311003
A truly Damascene conversion.
Interesting how he would still allow MPs to earn £250k a year writing for the Telegraph, like he used to do.
-
from the latest Mariana Hyde column - discussing Johnson's attempts to install Dacre as head of Ofcom:
In the end, though, none of this is really is about Dacre, who is just another bitter and restless faded star with an excess of boiled piss. He is merely a symptom. The disease is a government yet again attempting to game the system to suit itself – or rather, the man who leads it. For never mind his enemies. Perhaps the most unique characteristic of Boris Johnson as a politician is that you couldn’t even find a single one of his friends who would claim he got into politics because he cared about public service. The question for Conservative MPs, as he grinds on regardless, is how many things this prime minister will be allowed to break, pervert or permanently distort in a spree motivated solely by his own self-interest. Many of them are worth saving; for some it might already be too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/16/boris-johnson-new-jobs-paul-dacre-ofcom
-
despite an 80 seat majority johnson gets to eat shit and labour are ensuring his bowl is full, this won't be his last home cooked dinner.
-
He's a local councillor to be fair, rather than an MP, but that is beneath disgusting.
In his apology apparently:
1) He's really, really sorry.
2) It was a prank. Banter.
3) It wasn't him what done it, it was a friend.
4) It wasn't him what done it, his account was "compromised."
So, basically, he's a bell and AND a liar.
Now suspended & his twitter account has disappeared, guess the majority thought it wasn't funny unlike Ldr
-
Another mone
''Meanwhile, PPE Medpro was asked if anybody involved in the company had discussions with any peers as part of its approach to the government.
In their responses, neither Mone nor PPE Medpro disclosed that she had referred the company to Lord Agnew, a Cabinet Office minister.
At the time of the correspondence, Mone’s lawyers repeatedly denied that she had any connection or association with the company, or any role in how it secured the contracts.
One of the responses stated Mone and Barrowman “never had any role or function in PPE Medpro, nor in the process by which contracts were awarded to PPE Medpro”. Her lawyers said Mone was “not connected in any way with PPE Medpro” and added “any suggestion of an association” between their client and PPE Medpro would be “both inaccurate and misleading”.
The lawyers also said that “with reference to the ‘high priority lane’ … any suggestion that either [Mone or Barrowman] played any role in how the PPE Medpro contract was processed would be wholly inaccurate and misleading”.
''However, last week the DHSC disclosed that Mone had played a seemingly crucial role in the process, by making the initial recommendation to Agnew.
After her referral, Agnew recommended the company to the “VIP” lane for companies referred by ministers, MPs or peers.
Not sure how to describe this, an extremely large fib, lots and lots of little white lies, hiding behind one's fingers, being a little loose with the truth, telling a few porkies ...........
If you were paying for this what would you think, oh right ........
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/25/labour-calls-for-inquiry-into-tory-peer-michelle-mone-over-ppe-contract
-
Owen Paterson .............. what a pathetic joke this man is ..............
''Owen Paterson taking UK to human rights court after lobbying scandal''
''Paterson, a leading Brexiter who also once argued the UK should “break free” from the ECHR, filed his case on the grounds that his right to respect for private life was infringed under article 8 of the European convention on human rights''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/22/owen-paterson-taking-uk-to-human-rights-court-after-lobbying-scandal