The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Thing is, if we want more Andy Streets and Andy Burnhams (maybe just more Andy’s?) with the right background, they won’t all do it out of public duty like those two. Street was a very good Mayor, reached out to other parties, I’ve met him, top guy and proper One Nation Tory. We have to pay what the best leaders earn in all sectors where you find them (and it is a mix having worked across sectors). 

Then people moan at the salaries yet an HR Director at say IBM or in the NHS earns more than the PM. 

I agree they need to be paid more to get better quality in, and potentially fewer of them, particularly in key decision making roles around education, health and the economy. Some of the people in parliament really shouldnt be there, particularly having votes in more complex issues. In Germany I think they have a system where some matters (e.g. health) have cross party bodies that make decisions, to ensure a long term strategy and that these matters dont become so politicised, which is sensible.

You have to remember that to come through the local political system, its already a dog eat dog / backstabbing environment to make it anywhere there, let alone to progress to an MP and then through Westminster to rise to the top. This is what these career politicians live in day to day, so its no wonder we have the poor quality moral compass and lack of backbone in charge and they spend their days trying to look good and shaft each other (not all of them I hasten to add)

Edited Friday at 13:09 by Sir Ralph

[rooney]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Thing is, if we want more Andy Streets and Andy Burnhams (maybe just more Andy’s?) with the right background, they won’t all do it out of public duty like those two. Street was a very good Mayor, reached out to other parties, I’ve met him, top guy and proper One Nation Tory. We have to pay what the best leaders earn in all sectors where you find them (and it is a mix having worked across sectors). 

Then people moan at the salaries yet an HR Director at say IBM or in the NHS earns more than the PM. 

So do Council CEO’s who do not have to sell a thing.

 

 

[OldNick]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Thing is, if we want more Andy Streets and Andy Burnhams (maybe just more Andy’s?) with the right background, they won’t all do it out of public duty like those two. Street was a very good Mayor, reached out to other parties, I’ve met him, top guy and proper One Nation Tory. We have to pay what the best leaders earn in all sectors where you find them (and it is a mix having worked across sectors). 

Then people moan at the salaries yet an HR Director at say IBM or in the NHS earns more than the PM. 

Wes Streeting looks like a PM in waiting, not that I know too much about him. Just seems we have too many career politicians

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, OldNick said:

It seems there was a scandal re PPE but if you take yourselves back to that time where it looked like the world was coming to the end and the media were telling us that we didnt have gowns etc for the doctors and nurses, the Gov had to get them at any cost. There were many who took advantage, and sadly there were not the systems or ability at that time to check all the contracts. I recall the Gov asking any engineers etc to make incubators etc. It was wholesale panic, yes we can be wise after the event but there were many civil servants who didnt have the supplies ready in the event or foresight.

Anyway I have lost faith in all political parties, my father said to us when we were kids under Harold Wilson ( the last time we had to go cap in hand to IMF) that they were all there to feather their own nests, that was the 1970's. 

 

🤣

Utter nonsense

[hypochondriac]

24 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think "loads of money" is a bit of an exaggeration, and when you say cost the taxpayer money, do you mean from a wages POV?

I mean that HMRC would have lost out on thousands of pounds had she not been called out. As housing minister and deputy prime minister she has rightly been forced to resign and if anything it's even worse if her motivations for getting into politics was to help people. She's helped herself. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Thing is, if we want more Andy Streets and Andy Burnhams (maybe just more Andy’s?) with the right background, they won’t all do it out of public duty like those two. Street was a very good Mayor, reached out to other parties, I’ve met him, top guy and proper One Nation Tory. We have to pay what the best leaders earn in all sectors where you find them (and it is a mix having worked across sectors). 

Then people moan at the salaries yet an HR Director at say IBM or in the NHS earns more than the PM. 

100%. All MPs should have much higher salaries but it should be much easier to remove them if they aren't doing their job or renege on promises and do things they haven't been elected to do. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

100%. All MPs should have much higher salaries but it should be much easier to remove them if they aren't doing their job or renege on promises and do things they haven't been elected to do. 

Yep, agree on that. But by electorates/publics, not the kangaroo selection mechanisms Momentum and the ERG were using in their parties to cleanse whole wings. 

Edited Friday at 13:15 by Gloucester Saint

[Dr Who?]

When Labour were voted in they had an open goal, with such an incompetent Tory government that they took over from, but they have royally a Ronnie Rosenthal’ed it!  

They have completely forgotten their roots and their core voters and I cannot see them lasting the full term. 

A prime example is the exiting deputy of the Labour Party. Representing her constituents in Manchester, where she has a connecting with what they are going through, and how hard life, like her’s was in the area, well until she had money, and then she fecked off to the south coast and got herself a lovely little property! Then still looked to save a little bit more money. She as the Labour Party have and are screwing up a wonderful opportunity that they had to try and put things right, for the working classes, and all they have done is shat on them! 

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Pretty much, Reform fucking doesn’t either. Lib Dem’s and Greens are cleaner but Brexit has caused a schism on the former and Reform types and what’s left of the Tories are climate sceptics on the latter.

The public also has to grow up about the fact that if you pay peanuts..you know the rest. They are also housed in an asbestos riddled shithouse which looks nice coming into Waterloo but is horrific and dangerous close up.

If we want the outside talent @Wade Garrett wants then it won’t come cheap and even then, do they want the hassle that comes with it? And the danger - Cox, Amess. 

I’m reading former Tory Chief Whip and Minister Simon Hart’s book about how increasingly poor quality the politicians are and how the country is becoming more volatile and ungovernable.

Summary - good democracy in the public interest, and the mechanisms to remove bad apples costs money. Plus resources to scrutinise it properly. But in my view, much better VFM in the long-run and will ensure public priorities are met, unlike now. 

I agree. The outlook is depressing.

I think most people could sense labour were going to be a car crash (their GE campaign was to keep stum and just let public sentiments on the Tories win it for labour), but they have been terrible since getting in office. Considering they haven't had a major external issue jump out of them, I do think it's the worst year a government has had (that I can recall) for what are essentially self inflicted domestic issues / politics. The freebies they've been getting, the lying about qualifications, the winter fuel payments and grooming enquiry fiascos (complete political suicide on both fronts), they seem weaker on illegal migration than the Tories (in so much as the numbers have gone up), we've seen real regression on the free speech front, and whether rightly or wrongly - the 2 tier Keir moniker will remain with him for life.

But then look around - the response to labour (and the Tories) is to apparently now just vote reform - and a large part of that seems to be a similar attitude of "they aren't the other 2" or to punish lab/con. Reform may have a few good individuals/policoes in their mist, but is any of it really costed? Do they know how to implement any of it or work with the civil service? Or will they just been an even bigger car crash?! And in all seriousness (and taking politics out of it), I cannot ever see farage as PM and being the leader of the UK on the world stage... Like FFS. He is genuinely a guy who would just be happier in a pub with a pint talking to disgruntled locals about issues he knows they'll agree with him on... Not dealing with international sanctions or weapons deals, or hosting international figures to encourage business investments.

And ed Davey is no better... Running around baking and doing slip and slides is about as far removed as possible from what the country needs from the leader of a party who could well form the next (coalition) government or be the official opposition to a reform one.

UK politics is a shit fest - and a very bleak and depressing decade lies ahead. Are we doomed to cycle through the Tories, labour, and reform - before realising they're all shit and finally having some kind of political renaissance in a few years. Grim if so.

Edited Friday at 13:17 by Saint86

[Gloucester Saint]

7 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Wes Streeting looks like a PM in waiting, not that I know too much about him. Just seems we have too many career politicians

Darren Jones will be replacing Reeves at some stage I reckon as well. Agree on Streeting, best orator for years. 

[Saint86]

10 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Wes Streeting looks like a PM in waiting, not that I know too much about him. Just seems we have too many career politicians

He's the preffered candidate for the blairite wing of labour, but not for the left of labour. I think labour are almost as ungovernable now as the Tories were post Brexit. Corbyn/sultana's new party and rayners fall from grace could now split the labour party by the next GE.

[Lord Duckhunter]

She could always give the ginger growler an airing on Only Fans if she’s skint. 

[OldNick]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She could always give the ginger growler an airing on Only Fans if she’s skint. 

I suggest its been heavily viewed in the past

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Guess it was a case of resign or be sacked. 

I'm sure if she was a Tory this place would be full of people incandescent with rage about how all they care about is themselves, Tory scum etc but as shes Labour it's all a shame really. We know how it works.

My first reaction was a bit like that, so only fair to reply to this post.

Not so much a blanket "Tory scum" for me. But rather there have been so many scandals under their watch, that it's disappointing to see it continue.

Why seeing it continue should make me feel it's a shame is partly seeing a replacement party just settle in to be the same, and partly because for every day they were in opposition, they said they wouldn't be like that.

Despite the entire history of parliament showing otherwise, I just hoped for something better on that front.

As for Rayner, there's no question she had to go. She had got advice. But decided to accept the first level seemingly knowing about the benefit, rather than heed the full content asking her to get further expert advice. Regardless of the severity, or comparison with others, the result's the same. 

I had Times Radio on. Their guest, that I thought would be critical, actually said that this dodge was a common one, and she'd also been advised to set up a children's trust to avoid stamp duty. Cue studio pause as they readjusted their positions a bit. 

As for labour, they're probably already at each other's throats between the left and right to get their preferred candidate in place. The entire history of parliament teaches us that too. Which is also a shame.

[benjii]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She could always give the ginger growler an airing on Only Fans if she’s skint. 

2 pints?

[egg]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

2 pints?

She'd be lucky to get enough to buy 2 pints. Although, chances are she'd try to get away with only paying for 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

[benjii]

Sounds like she made a mistake rather than went out of her way to cheat.

It's also quite a telling tale of how stupidly over-complex our tax system is.

But, ultimately she fucked up.

And when she was found to have fucked up, she quit instantly.

Reminds me of when Boris quit for lying to the house, or when Cummins quit for going for a nice drive during Covid, or... oh, hang on.

[iansums]

42 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

🤣

Utter nonsense

No, it's utterly correct. Everybody, including governments went into panic mode, buying face masks and hand gel etc. at ludicrous prices. I remember my company wasting £000's on perspex screens. The same thing would have happened under Labour.

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, benjii said:

Sounds like she made a mistake rather than went out of her way to cheat.

It's also quite a telling tale of how stupidly over-complex our tax system is.

But, ultimately she fucked up.

And when she was found to have fucked up, she quit instantly.

Reminds me of when Boris quit for lying to the house, or when Cummins quit for going for a nice drive during Covid, or... oh, hang on.

This wasn't complex. If she had listened to the advice she was given and received proper qualified advice on the stamp duty then it would have been very clear. She got expert advice from two different legal firms that she get expert opinion and ignored it. As housing minister she was either incompetent to the degree that she shouldn't be in government or she knew about it and did it anyway not thinking she would get found out. Either is shite.

Edited Friday at 13:56 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 minutes ago, benjii said:

Sounds like she made a mistake rather than went out of her way to cheat.

It's also quite a telling tale of how stupidly over-complex our tax system is.

Stamp duty is not complicated at all, especially when you’re the housing minister. 
 

Bring advised to seek further advice and then not doing so, is “going out of your way to cheat”, bizarre that someone would think otherwise. 
 

She’s guilty by omission, and then lied to try and cover it up. “Mistake” my arse…

[OldNick]

15 minutes ago, benjii said:

Sounds like she made a mistake rather than went out of her way to cheat.

It's also quite a telling tale of how stupidly over-complex our tax system is.

But, ultimately she fucked up.

And when she was found to have fucked up, she quit instantly.

Reminds me of when Boris quit for lying to the house, or when Cummins quit for going for a nice drive during Covid, or... oh, hang on.

Im not having that, she hung on unti it was bvious she was done. The conveyancing company who came out last night and said they didnt give her advice was thestraw that broke the camels back. I am delighted as I cant stand her

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 16/07/2024 at 08:55, sadoldgit said:

Now that the GE is done and dusted it is time for a new political thread. Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again after the crazy, psycho dramas of the last few years.

Starmer’s Labour have certainly hit the ground running

😂😂

[OldNick]

56 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

🤣

Utter nonsense

I always feel vindicated when you come out against my views 😀

Edited Friday at 14:05 by OldNick

[Sir Ralph]

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Starmer’s Labour have certainly hit the ground running

Don’t be too harsh - I’m sure running was a typo

[Lord Duckhunter]

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Stamp duty is not complicated at all, especially when you’re the housing minister. 

Bring advised to seek further advice and then not doing so, is “going out of your way to cheat”, bizarre that someone would think otherwise. 

She’s guilty by omission, and then lied to try and cover it up. “Mistake” my arse…

It's complicated when it comes to Trust arrangements. On the face of it, she didn't own another property, but the circumstances around the Trust meant that she had a technical interest. Being the housing minister wouldn't give her that sort of tax knowledge. 

Re the rest, there's a difference between what Shoosmiths said yesterday and the ethics letter. Shoosmiths were clear that they did not give any advice regarding the SDLT due, just an online figure (information, not advice - an important distinction), with their advice being that she takes Tax advice. 

The ethics letter refers to Shoosmiths having given "advice", with a "recommendation" and a "suggestion" that she takes advice. Is surprised if that's accurate. 

She's "guilty by omission" on the ethics letter version, but it looks murkier based on Shoosmiths account. 

Regardless, she messed up properly and had to go. Credit to her though for the self referral, the (belated) proper advice, and resigning. 

[tdmickey3]

18 minutes ago, iansums said:

No, it's utterly correct. Everybody, including governments went into panic mode, buying face masks and hand gel etc. at ludicrous prices. I remember my company wasting £000's on perspex screens. The same thing would have happened under Labour.

I am very aware of the PPE nonsense but thanks

[tdmickey3]

14 minutes ago, OldNick said:

I always feel vindicated when you come out against my views 😀

I know its wrong first hand mate

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

I know its wrong first hand mate

what, that the Gov had to buy the PPE whatever the price as the world was trying to get hold of it?

[tdmickey3]

7 minutes ago, OldNick said:

what, that the Gov had to buy the PPE whatever the price as the world was trying to get hold of it?

No, the fact they said they didn't have time to check, the hardly tried and gave contracts to companies (pals) who would never have the resources of types of business to make it.

[OldNick]

2 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

No, the fact they said they didn't have time to check, the hardly tried and gave contracts to companies (pals) who would never have the resources of types of business to make it.

The thousands of compnies who were in the supply of this had multiple options where to sell, the Gov needed it and so had to a degree waix=ve it through. The gowns and PPE for the front line were runnning out (the news were constantly telling us that doctors and nurses hadnt the kit) , what was worse, the nurses potentiallycatching the disease or us paying too much? The Gov of any color would have had to make the same decision. It was obvious that some would benifit eg Mone. It must be eyewatering what each gown that should havebeen a fraction of a penny cost, but needs must. I would love her and the others to be convicted but I suggest there is little chance of getting the money back

[OldNick]

15 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

No, the fact they said they didn't have time to check, the hardly tried and gave contracts to companies (pals) who would never have the resources of types of business to make it.

A mamouth task to check each company, civil servants are stretched as it is, let alone the resources needed to check every business. We needed it then not 3 weeks later after checking at a time of emergency 

Edited Friday at 14:41 by OldNick

[egg]

6 minutes ago, OldNick said:

A mamouth task to check each company, civil servants are stretched as it is, let alone the resources needed to check every business. We needed it then not 3 weeks later after checking at a time of emergency 

We seemingly didn't bother checking whether any of the businesses could supply what they were to supply. Simple enquiries shouldn't have been hard or time consuming. There was a combination of panic and incompetence, when people want to believe that there was dishonesty as well, I find it hard to argue against it. 

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, egg said:

It's complicated when it comes to Trust arrangements. On the face of it, she didn't own another property, but the circumstances around the Trust meant that she had a technical interest. Being the housing minister wouldn't give her that sort of tax knowledge. 

Re the rest, there's a difference between what Shoosmiths said yesterday and the ethics letter. Shoosmiths were clear that they did not give any advice regarding the SDLT due, just an online figure (information, not advice - an important distinction), with their advice being that she takes Tax advice. 

The ethics letter refers to Shoosmiths having given "advice", with a "recommendation" and a "suggestion" that she takes advice. Is surprised if that's accurate. 

She's "guilty by omission" on the ethics letter version, but it looks murkier based on Shoosmiths account. 

Regardless, she messed up properly and had to go. Credit to her though for the self referral, the (belated) proper advice, and resigning. 

She only self referred after it was investigated and she realised she was bang to rights. Apparently they had a KC looking at it last week before they even publicly admitted anything. She deserves no credit for resigning, she has clearly only done so because she was told she should resign or be pushed. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

She only self referred after it was investigated and she realised she was bang to rights. Apparently they had a KC looking at it last week before they even publicly admitted anything. She deserves no credit for resigning, she has clearly only done so because she was told she should resign or be pushed. 

Unsurprisingly, we disagree. Doing the right thing after you've done wrong is all you can do, and she did that. Doesn't alter that she didn't bother taking actual advice when she should have though. 

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Interesting that she's been replaced by a couple of chairs. One way to minimise the risk of further scandal I suppose. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Unsurprisingly, we disagree. Doing the right thing after you've done wrong is all you can do, and she did that. Doesn't alter that she didn't bother taking actual advice when she should have though. 

Sure. Resigning when given virtually no option and reporting yourself after you've had a KC looking at it the previous week to look for the wrongdoing is so honourable. 

[east-stand-nic]

47 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

I know its wrong first hand mate

Caught out clueless as ever. 

[iansums]

The answer to the title of this thread appears to be……….No!

[hypochondriac]

Oh my god they've made Lammy deputy PM. These people are insane.

[trousers]

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Oh my god they've made Lammy deputy PM. These people are insane.

Blimey. Trying to find a positive, he's probably less dangerous there than he is as Foreign Secretary.

 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Blimey. Trying to find a positive, he's probably less dangerous there than he is as Foreign Secretary.

 

If anything happens to Starmer then Lammy would become prime minister. I can't think of many people less suitable. I think I need a lie down.

[hypochondriac]

Yvette cooper is at least a safe pair of hands as Foreign Secretary but Lammy as deputy PM is extraordinary. Who on earth is he going to appeal to?

[tdmickey3]

51 minutes ago, OldNick said:

A mamouth task to check each company, civil servants are stretched as it is, let alone the resources needed to check every business. We needed it then not 3 weeks later after checking at a time of emergency 

Believe what you like nick, I don’t care

[OldNick]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

wow just goes to show how poor the standard is!!!!

[Holmes_and_Watson]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

Interesting that she's been replaced by a couple of chairs. One way to minimise the risk of further scandal I suppose. 

No, the wooden bit of furniture was in the original.

Wait, that's Starmer.

 

Vote Chair! Less wooden and with four legs to stand on, instead of none!

 

[trousers]

 

 

[tdmickey3]

31 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Caught out clueless as ever. 

Out of your jacket for a bit then nutter, you will disappear again soon enough

[tdmickey3]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

We seemingly didn't bother checking whether any of the businesses could supply what they were to supply. Simple enquiries shouldn't have been hard or time consuming. There was a combination of panic and incompetence, when people want to believe that there was dishonesty as well, I find it hard to argue against it. 

Spot on but some bizarrely don’t want to agree now but they were a while back