The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[rallyboy]

Farage has already done worse, just another stupid error that the usual suspects are trying to big up - hilarious that the ones who defended and promoted wholesale corruption and incompetence for 14 years are now getting all uppity, bless.

Next.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

😂 The usual suspects defending the new broom again. Amazing how many “mistakes” these chumps make that only come to light after the media start asking questions, and how they all benefit themselves. Maybe the next “mistake”, will end up costing a minister money 😂😂

[Gloucester Saint]

Do you seriously think that the CofE is going to have capacity to look into local rules of rentals? I’d query some of the people she delegates to because a bit of research and a few phone calls avoids that. But it’s not even small beer, it’s barely alcohol free. 

It’s like Sunak forgetting to wear a seatbelt on that video. Not ideal but we’ve all forgotten occasionally. 

Farage and Rayner did far worse, and Nigel hasn’t even got the partial excuse of trying to provide for a very disabled child after he’s popped his clogs, not that it makes what Rayner did right at all btw and deserved to go.

Farage was pure greed. Can’t wait for the Led by Donkeys trailers with his huge list of outside interests and different paid jobs. Good luck living in Clacton.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂 The usual suspects defending the new broom again. Amazing how many “mistakes” these chumps make that only come to light after the media start asking questions, and how they all benefit themselves. Maybe the next “mistake”, will end up costing a minister money 😂😂

She didn’t gain any financial or any other advantage, unlike Farage or Rayner. Not difficult to grasp is it? Should have been avoided as Hypo said but you and the Mail are like bowlers screaming for lbw when it’s hit her forearm, and Farage is plumb in front of all 3 stumps on his housing.

Edited 20 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

She didn’t gain any financial or any other advantage, unlike Farage or Rayner. Not difficult to grasp is it? 

For some it appears it is.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

She didn’t gain any financial or any other advantage, unlike Farage or Rayner. Not difficult to grasp is it? Should have been avoided as Hypo said but you and the Mail are like bowlers screaming for lbw when it’s hit her forearm, and Farage is plumb in front of all 3 stumps on his housing.

Farage isn't in government though.

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Farage isn't in government though.

Thankful, but he is an MP

[Gloucester Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Farage isn't in government though.

Perfect example of why he shouldn’t ever be. Even less grasp of detail than Boris.

If people want to hammer Reeves, there are far better reasons, such as not making SMEs under 20 ppl and charities exempt from the NI rises. That made me cross.

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

Thankful, but he is an MP

And his party now ‘lead’ some of the country’s largest county councils.

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

And his party now ‘lead’ some of the country’s largest county councils.

I feel very sorry for the people who didn't vote for his lot but the gullible fools that did deserve everything they get

[whelk]

41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂 The usual suspects defending the new broom again. Amazing how many “mistakes” these chumps make that only come to light after the media start asking questions, and how they all benefit themselves. Maybe the next “mistake”, will end up costing a minister money 😂😂

4 more years😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Perfect example of why he shouldn’t ever be. Even less grasp of detail than Boris.

If people want to hammer Reeves, there are far better reasons, such as not making SMEs under 20 ppl and charities exempt from the NI rises. That made me cross.

Right but it's obvious why government ministers get more scrutiny than MPs of opposition parties not in power.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

I feel very sorry for the people who didn't vote for his lot but the gullible fools that did deserve everything they get

Classic example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly183gr2nzo

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-councils-doge-nigel-farage-elon-musk-b2844503.html

https://www.lgcplus.com/finance/revealed-reforms-doge-has-visited-just-three-councils-17-09-2025/

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

I feel very sorry for the people who didn't vote for his lot but the gullible fools that did deserve everything they get

See Brexit. Most gullible people will not admit mistakes and swallow the next lie. Reform types never acknowledge difficulty and will always find someone to blame that their base will latch on to it. It’s all psychology of self preservation and denial. 
 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but it's obvious why government ministers get more scrutiny than MPs of opposition parties not in power.

True and they are.

Oppositions need scrutiny too - Labour were not as prepared as they should’ve been as clear they were going to win, and that went under the radar with the sheer mess the Tories were in. They’ve been slightly better than what came before (very slightly!) but I expect the people who voted for them wanted a lot more than they’ve had so far. Their communications are lousy - Streeting has had as big a hospital pass as Reeves and Starmer and he’s made mistakes too, but he’s so much better at correcting them and explaining succinctly. 

If I was a Labour voter or member, that’s the leader I’d want, in fact I’d break a habit of a lifetime and vote for him.

Edited 20 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

True and they are.

Oppositions need scrutiny too - Labour were not as prepared as they should’ve been as clear they were going to win, and that went under the radar with the sheer mess the Tories were in. They’ve been slightly better than what came before (very slightly!) but I expect the people who voted for them wanted a lot more than they’ve had so far. Their communications are lousy - Streeting has had as big a hospital pass as Reeves and Starmer and he’s made mistakes too, but he’s so much better at correcting them and explaining succinctly. 

If I was a Labour voter or member, that’s the leader I’d want, in fact I’d break a habit of a lifetime and vote for him.

I agree with most of that. It's debatable they've been better than the Tories so far for me. I think they've been better in some areas but worse in others. Certainly the communication has been the worst thing.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree with most of that. It's debatable they've been better than the Tories so far for me. I think they've been better in some areas but worse in others. Certainly the communication has been the worst thing.

I think when life is gloomy whoever is in power suffers - actually if asked people to list what the government has done that impacts them and don’t think many would have much. Ditto wider policies not directly impacting. Appreciate people hoped for more good news.

Although feels limited how much this government can make a difference when they promised not to be radical. They are more beholden to the markets then ever which is basically gamblers who want guarantees that they can continue to make fortunes.

 

[moonraker]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Farage isn't in government though.

should still abide by the same standards.  He is always ready to call others out but gets very aggressive when asked legitimate questions about his own dirty dealings.

[rallyboy]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's debatable they've been better than the Tories so far for me.

Bearing in mind the mass corruption still being exposed and the destruction of most departments by the previous government I think that's pushing it.

This administration may do worse eventually but they're nowhere near it at the moment. Never forget how the Boris gang raped the coffers during Covid and partied while the stupid peasants were prevented from holding family funerals.

The most criminal and shamefully incompetent government in living memory.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

I think when life is gloomy whoever is in power suffers - actually if asked people to list what the government has done that impacts them and don’t think many would have much. Ditto wider policies not directly impacting. Appreciate people hoped for more good news.

Although feels limited how much this government can make a difference when they promised not to be radical. They are more beholden to the markets then ever which is basically gamblers who want guarantees that they can continue to make fortunes.

 

Agree with that too. There's no doubt that the state of the country has impacted on labour's popularity. Starmer being the last charismatic politician ever hasnt also helped but they have to take their share of the blame regardless of the circumstances. Hammering all sorts of different groups since they got into power just pisses everyone off. They've shown no political nouse appointing Mandleson for example. 

I listened to a podcast today where they said that the time to raise taxes was when Trump came into power and we could have used the war in Ukraine as an excuse rather than now which just looks like incompetence. They need a strategy person with a bit of forward thinking.

[AlexLaw76]

This aged well (over the last week)

 

[badgerx16]

If 'efficiency' in Local Government  is purely a matter of cutting budgets, why is it still being mentioned after the slash and burn economics of the Tory's austerity  programs ?

Surely a 40% cut in budgets must have vastly improved LG performance?

[badgerx16]

See Nic, that emoji might be judged appropriate, but I doubt that you meant it in that way.

Edited 16 hours ago by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

5 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

She didn’t gain any financial or any other advantage, unlike Farage or Rayner. Not difficult to grasp is it? Should have been avoided as Hypo said but you and the Mail are like bowlers screaming for lbw when it’s hit her forearm, and Farage is plumb in front of all 3 stumps on his housing.

Devil's advocate..

Fat Boris and Sunak didn't gain any financial advantage when they attended gatherings during lockdown.

At the time though, those responsible for creating the law were held to high standards to follow the law. Should that not still be the case?

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Devil's advocate..

Fat Boris and Sunak didn't gain any financial advantage when they attended gatherings during lockdown.

At the time though, those responsible for creating the law were held to high standards to follow the law. Should that not still be the case?

Fair point, but it’s about proportionality and impact. Reeves hasn’t impacted anyone else other than herself. Lockdown rules prevented me from going to one of my best friend’s funeral in Cumbria and thousands of kids had to say goodbye to dying parents via Zoom.

[AlexLaw76]

19 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Fair point, but it’s about proportionality and impact. Reeves hasn’t impacted anyone else other than herself. Lockdown rules prevented me from going to one of my best friend’s funeral in Cumbria and thousands of kids had to say goodbye to dying parents via Zoom.

You could have just done what you wanted. Half of the country did at the time

[east-stand-nic]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

See Nic, that emoji might be judged appropriate, but I doubt that you meant it in that way.

Was I the only one to lol emoji your post? Playing childish favourites again huh?

[Farmer Saint]

53 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You could have just done what you wanted. Half of the country did at the time

I wonder which half that was...

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You could have just done what you wanted. Half of the country did at the time

Did they actually or did you read that on twitter

[tdmickey3]

35 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I wonder which half that was...

Just a few pricks boasting on twatter, sorry X

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

Was I the only one to lol emoji your post? Playing childish favourites again huh?

You will always be my favourite.

[tdmickey3]

18 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You will always be my favourite.

Well, he is a favourite because he is so stupid and easily to laugh at... 

[Weston Super Saint]

From the BBC live page - no point putting a link as it probably won't work after today!

That clears that up then, Reeves not at fault as the estate agency said they would sort out the licence - which they don't usually do...

Quote

We've just heard for the first time from the letting agency which oversaw the renting out of Rachel Reeves' former family home.

They were previously declining to comment but Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, has now released a statement - here it is in full:

"We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients' behalf, as shown in the correspondence.

"That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.

"Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply.

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.

"We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

 

[east-stand-nic]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

You will always be my favourite.

Outed once again. All too easy. 

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, east-stand-nic said:

Outed once again. All too easy. 

Posting time = 18:03 UK time or 01:03 in Thailand.

Just got back from work and posting whilst having an evening shit in the UK, or just finished smashing the back doors in of a Thai ladyboy?  You decide (option 1 for me).

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Outed once again. All too easy. 

What the fuck are you on about ?

[AlexLaw76]

Oh dear, looks like Rachel from accounts has been breaking the law. 
 

Law makers can’t be law breakers.

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

From the BBC live page - no point putting a link as it probably won't work after today!

That clears that up then, Reeves not at fault as the estate agency said they would sort out the licence - which they don't usually do...

 

Nothing to see then.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Oh dear, looks like Rachel from accounts has been breaking the law. 
 

Law makers can’t be law breakers.

I don't see there's much she could have done given she was under the impression that it was applied for. It's the company at fault not her.

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't see there's much she could have done given she was under the impression that it was applied for. It's the company at fault not her.

Although to be fair, yesterday she definitely wasn't under that impression as she wrote to the PM to say she didn't know she needed a licence.

Today though she knows she did need one after all but thought someone else was doing it.

It's not exactly big potatoes but the excuses aren't consistent - surely a lawyer / PM would figure that out...

[Gloucester Saint]

43 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

From the BBC live page - no point putting a link as it probably won't work after today!

That clears that up then, Reeves not at fault as the estate agency said they would sort out the licence - which they don't usually do...

 

We always say at work that even if someone is normally reliable, that if they are into their notice period and/or a potential departure risk that you are best off asking another team member to handle something crucial/VIP. Particularly so if there’s a possibility of warranty or queries or follow ups after their last day. 

[hypochondriac]

37 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Although to be fair, yesterday she definitely wasn't under that impression as she wrote to the PM to say she didn't know she needed a licence.

Today though she knows she did need one after all but thought someone else was doing it.

It's not exactly big potatoes but the excuses aren't consistent - surely a lawyer / PM would figure that out...

She could easily claim the correspondence was with her husband so what she said wasn't untrue yesterday. Either way it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. Plenty of legitimate stuff to hammer Reeves with already.

[Lord Duckhunter]

41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't see there's much she could have done given she was under the impression that it was applied for. It's the company at fault not her.

She said yesterday she was unaware she needed one. Now the line is she knew, but thought someone else was getting it.
 

If she thought someone else was getting it, who did she think paid for it because I presume she didn’t pay the £1,000. 

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She said yesterday she was unaware she needed one. Now the line is she knew, but thought someone else was getting it.
 

If she thought someone else was getting it, who did she think paid for it because I presume she didn’t pay the £1,000. 

Maybe she was unaware she needed to get one because she assumed if she did the agency would sort it out?

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She said yesterday she was unaware she needed one. Now the line is she knew, but thought someone else was getting it.
 

If she thought someone else was getting it, who did she think paid for it because I presume she didn’t pay the £1,000. 

Isn't the line that her husband knew and thought someone else was sorting it? 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

"That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday."

What dark secrets did the property manager uncover, causing the sudden resignation?

Where are they now?

Will we see them before the bruises heal, as they confess to definitely having been at fault, and in no way part of a cover up?

🙂