The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

22 minutes ago, trousers said:

Our time being between a minute before she resigned for tax avoidance and resigning for tax avoidance. 🙂

[tdmickey3]

56 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 

🤷‍♂️

[Holmes_and_Watson]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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?

Still just Mrs Lammy. 🙂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

55 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. 

 

53 minutes ago, 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. 

I agreed with both of these within a second, only for the two of you to then disagree about something.

Suddenly, I'm Charlie Sheen flying out of a combat zone, conflicted between two influences on his life.

So, I'll thank you not to turn my life into the navel gazing bit of a war film in future! 🙂

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

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?

Do you actually think Deputy PM is a step up from Foreign Secretary? Maybe I’m too influenced by Veep

[whelk]

1 hour 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 

They pissed away public money in the billions. Hindsight is easy but they were extremely stupid in places - giving handouts to companies not even set up in February 2020

[whelk]

55 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Still just Mrs Lammy. 🙂

JD Vance loves Lammy apparently 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

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?

DPM is quite a strategic role and I don’t think Lammy will have the same scope Rayner did as that was a ticket to get the Labour left to buy-in. Agree on Cooper as safe pair of hands, same way Hunt was for the Tories. 
Edit - @whelk is right on the Vance link, he’ll probably be more focused on that and Cooper more on linking in with defence and NATO. How tidy Cooper has been at the Home Office given the shit that goes on there is creditable. Remember Howard and Blunkett comparing war stories on a panel about what a nightmare HO is. Chewed up a lot of solid experienced campaigners as well as some junk (Braverman).

Edited Friday at 16:42 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do you actually think Deputy PM is a step up from Foreign Secretary? Maybe I’m too influenced by Veep

It isn't. Foreign Secretary is massively important. Deputy PM does nothing save in the unlikely event that Starmer becomes incapacitated. It's a demotion dressed up as a promotion. 

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

DPM is quite a strategic role and I don’t think Lammy will have the same scope Rayner did as that was a ticket to get the Labour left to buy-in. Agree on Cooper as safe pair of hands, same way Hunt was for the Tories. 
Edit - @whelk is right on the Vance link, he’ll probably be more focused on that and Cooper more on linking in with defence and NATO. How tidy Cooper has been at the Home Office given the shit that goes on there is creditable. Remember Howard and Blunkett comparing war stories on a panel about what a nightmare HO is. Chewed up a lot of solid experienced campaigners as well as some junk (Braverman).

Do you think? US VP is a massive role, but isn't out version pretty much an honorary role unless in an emergency? I'd imagine Lammy's cabinet role wouldn't increase. 

[Gloucester Saint]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

Do you think? US VP is a massive role, but isn't out version pretty much an honorary role unless in an emergency? I'd imagine Lammy's cabinet role wouldn't increase. 

Quite likely yes, I don’t think he will have the same scope as Rayner did with her being a key figure on their left.

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Quite likely yes, I don’t think he will have the same scope as Rayner did with her being a key figure on their left.

He is not the Housing Communities and Local Government Minister.

[Wade Garrett]

7 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Her salary is now what £90k-odd

she now has a £40k tax bill, a large fine, and significant mortgage payments on her £800k home, let alone the cost of the lease. Does she contribute financially to their other property she has interest in?

she is going to be skint beyond belief 

Her mate who raped the fuck out of Unite will probably drop her a few quid.

[ChrisPY]

3 hours ago, whelk said:

Do you actually think Deputy PM is a step up from Foreign Secretary? Maybe I’m too influenced by Veep

In the couple of months before and after an election, Labour Deputy is one of the most important positions. 
Absolutely pointless the rest of the time.

[Gloucester Saint]

56 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Her mate who raped the fuck out of Unite will probably drop her a few quid.

Ah yes, Red Len.

[Sheaf Saint]

It's perhaps unsurprising to see a few people jumping on the Rayner story and suggesting that it proves Labour are 'just as bad' as the Tories, but that's an obvious overreaction from people always willing to look for any stick to beat them with. And it demonstrates some laughable double standards from some political opponents, who have resolutely defended their own colleagues for far worse transgressions in the past.

What Ange did was obviously ill-judged and she has rightfully had to resign over it, but it's not exactly an abuse of her office when it's just a very common tax dodge that pretty much anybody could do and easily get away with. It's the lying about it and the attempt to cover it up that made her position untenable though.

Compare that to a certain previous holder of her office, who really did abuse his position by, among other things, unlawfully approving a property development proposal from a Tory donor to help him avoid having to pay £45m in Community Infrastructure tax that would have been reinvested in local health and education projects. And despite presiding over scandal after scandal during his time in the post, he still kept his job until he was reshuffled out of the cabinet for political reasons.

Believe me, I'm far from happy with this government so far. But in terms of ministerial scandals, they're not even in the same ball park as the previous lot. Not yet, anyway. When one of their ministers gets caught illegally meeting with foreign government counterparts while on 'holiday' to discuss the possibility of diverting aid funding to their military, then we can start drawing fair comparisons of corruption. 

Edited Saturday at 06:42 by Sheaf Saint

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

It's perhaps unsurprising to see a few people jumping on the Rayner story and suggesting that it proves Labour are 'just as bad' as the Tories, but that's an obvious overreaction from people always willing to look for any stick to beat them with. And it demonstrates some laughable double standards from some political opponents, who have resolutely defended their own colleagues for far worse transgressions in the past.

What Ange did was obviously ill-judged and she has rightfully had to resign over it, but it's not exactly an abuse of her office when it's just a very common tax dodge that pretty much anybody could do and easily get away with. It's the lying about it and the attempt to cover it up that made her position untenable though.

Compare that to a certain previous holder of her office, who really did abuse his position by, among other things, unlawfully approving a property development proposal from a Tory donor to help him avoid having to pay £45m in Community Infrastructure tax that would have been reinvested in local health and education projects. And despite presiding over scandal after scandal during his time in the post, he still kept his job until he was reshuffled out of the cabinet for political reasons.

Believe me, I'm far from happy with this government so far. But in terms of ministerial scandals, they're not even in the same ball park as the previous lot. Not yet, anyway. When one of their ministers gets caught illegally meeting with foreign government counterparts while on 'holiday' to discuss the possibility of diverting aid funding to their military, then we can start drawing fair comparisons of corruption. 

The constant comparing the Government with the last lot is becoming a bit tired.

the last lot are done, and will not be in full control for a generation. Constantly comparing them to what the shyster Tories did is not going make a blind bit of difference.

One thing is for sure, if this is the standard of Government 12 months or so in, I should imagine it is well within their ability to match/surpass the last lot within a decade - if we are comparing, like

in response to the very first post on this thread….appears not to be the case.

Quote

Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again

 

Edited Saturday at 06:53 by AlexLaw76

[trousers]

49 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

It's perhaps unsurprising to see a few people jumping on the Rayner story and suggesting that it proves Labour are 'just as bad' as the Tories, but that's an obvious overreaction from people always willing to look for any stick to beat them with. And it demonstrates some laughable double standards from some political opponents, who have resolutely defended their own colleagues for far worse transgressions in the past.

What Ange did was obviously ill-judged and she has rightfully had to resign over it, but it's not exactly an abuse of her office when it's just a very common tax dodge that pretty much anybody could do and easily get away with. It's the lying about it and the attempt to cover it up that made her position untenable though.

Compare that to a certain previous holder of her office, who really did abuse his position by, among other things, unlawfully approving a property development proposal from a Tory donor to help him avoid having to pay £45m in Community Infrastructure tax that would have been reinvested in local health and education projects. And despite presiding over scandal after scandal during his time in the post, he still kept his job until he was reshuffled out of the cabinet for political reasons.

Believe me, I'm far from happy with this government so far. But in terms of ministerial scandals, they're not even in the same ball park as the previous lot. Not yet, anyway. When one of their ministers gets caught illegally meeting with foreign government counterparts while on 'holiday' to discuss the possibility of diverting aid funding to their military, then we can start drawing fair comparisons of corruption. 

Isn't the 'measure' of a discretion more about expectation vs reality though?

It's almost expected of the 'nasty' Tories that they'll do dodgy stuff, ergo it's not very surprising when it happens. Conversely, the more 'moral' Labourites are perhaps considered a paragon of virtue, ergo when they transgress it's obviously going to feel worse than when the Tories do/did the same.

It's a bit like comparing a scouser shoplifting Vs the Pope shoplifting... Same crime but the Pope is obviously going to attract more flak...

(Other dubious analogies are available)

In other words, Labour supporters should treat any 'over reaction' as a compliment, as it's merely a reflection of the superior morals that they espouse

Edited Saturday at 07:30 by trousers

[Sheaf Saint]

46 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The constant comparing the Government with the last lot is becoming a bit tired.

the last lot are done, and will not be in full control for a generation. Constantly comparing them to what the shyster Tories did is not going make a blind bit of difference.

One thing is for sure, if this is the standard of Government 12 months or so in, I should imagine it is well within their ability to match/surpass the last lot within a decade - if we are comparing, like

in response to the very first post on this thread….appears not to be the case.

 

Time will tell, I guess.

[Sheaf Saint]

37 minutes ago, trousers said:

Isn't the 'measure' of a discretion more about expectation vs reality though?

It's almost expected of the 'nasty' Tories that they'll do dodgy stuff, ergo it's not very surprising when it happens. Conversely, the more 'moral' Labourites are perhaps considered a paragon of virtue, ergo when they transgress it's obviously going to feel worse than when the Tories do/did the same.

It's a bit like comparing a scouser shoplifting Vs the Pope shoplifting... Same crime but the Pope is obviously going to attract more flak...

(Other dubious analogies are available)

In other words, Labour supporters should treat any 'over reaction' as a compliment, as it's merely a reflection of the superior morals that they espouse

For someone who "doesn't make points", this is a very good one 😉

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

For someone who "doesn't make points", this is a very good one 😉

Cheers... Just wish I'd gone for the 'Pompey fan shagging his sister' analogy instead though...

[benjii]

Time for a proper government.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Isn't the 'measure' of a discretion more about expectation vs reality though?

It's almost expected of the 'nasty' Tories that they'll do dodgy stuff, ergo it's not very surprising when it happens. Conversely, the more 'moral' Labourites are perhaps considered a paragon of virtue, ergo when they transgress it's obviously going to feel worse than when the Tories do/did the same.

It's a bit like comparing a scouser shoplifting Vs the Pope shoplifting... Same crime but the Pope is obviously going to attract more flak...

(Other dubious analogies are available)

In other words, Labour supporters should treat any 'over reaction' as a compliment, as it's merely a reflection of the superior morals that they espouse

Also worth pointing out that they have been the ones in opposition saying how different it would be under labour and how they will uphold the values of honour and integrity. The likes of Boris never really pretended he was anything other than what he is and like you say it wasn't a surprise when they turned out to be exactly what everyone knew already. Labour claimed they were holding themselves to even higher standards so of course they are going to get their feet held to the fire, even if their indescretions aren't as egregious as some of the conservative side. Like someone else said, it's been a year now. At what point will the constant comparisons to the Tories stop and they are to be judged on their own merits?

[CB Fry]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Also worth pointing out that they have been the ones in opposition saying how different it would be under labour and how they will uphold the values of honour and integrity. The likes of Boris never really pretended he was anything other than what he is and like you say it wasn't a surprise when they turned out to be exactly what everyone knew already. Labour claimed they were holding themselves to even higher standards so of course they are going to get their feet held to the fire, even if their indescretions aren't as egregious as some of the conservative side. Like someone else said, it's been a year now. At what point will the constant comparisons to the Tories stop and they are to be judged on their own merits?

In 2024 Tories were still twatting on about the Liam Byrne note that he left in the treasury in 2010 so I think Labour can still blame the Tories for the absolute fuck up they left behind in all public services. Let's remember the NI cut that Sunak put through was just salting the earth to make it more difficult for Labour because that was clearly not what the nation needed at that point with public services on their fucking knees.

Edited Saturday at 10:13 by CB Fry

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Cheers... Just wish I'd gone for the 'Pompey fan shagging his sister' analogy instead though...

I do know some jokes about that topic if you want to hear some 😉

Although might save them for the Skates match thread nearer next Sunday

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

In 2024 Tories were still twatting on about the Liam Byrne note that he left in the treasury in 2010 so I think Labour can still blame the Tories for the absolute fuck up they left behind in all public services. Let's remember the NI cut that Sunak put through was just salting the earth to make it more difficult for Labour.

I don't give a fuck what the twattish Tories were going on about. I'm not a Tory. I care about the performance of the party in government. If reform get in next I certainly won't give much of a toss about what Labour did the last time a year into a Reform premiership. 

[Gloucester Saint]

According to Reform Rayner built up a Mount Everest hypocrisy of a property portfolio whilst lamenting a housing shortage.

Some truth in that but do as I say, not say as I do it appears.

Farage has at least FIVE properties. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

18 hours ago, egg said:

It isn't. Foreign Secretary is massively important. Deputy PM does nothing save in the unlikely event that Starmer becomes incapacitated. It's a demotion dressed up as a promotion. 

Exactly, it’s what Boris did to Dom Raab as well. 
 

He wanted Shabana Mahmood as Home Sec, but couldnt demote Cooper from one of the big 4 offices of state. Lammy was the fall guy, who was given DPM as a sop. 

[OldNick]

5 hours ago, CB Fry said:

In 2024 Tories were still twatting on about the Liam Byrne note that he left in the treasury in 2010 so I think Labour can still blame the Tories for the absolute fuck up they left behind in all public services. Let's remember the NI cut that Sunak put through was just salting the earth to make it more difficult for Labour because that was clearly not what the nation needed at that point with public services on their fucking knees.

I dont care who did what, but ifByrne and his note and if you say about NI was done to hurt the economy is correct both acts were disgusting as they hurt us all. Politicians treat it as a game when really it is our lives they are toying with

Edited Saturday at 15:51 by OldNick

[Sir Ralph]

England fans paying their “compliments” to Kier Starmer during the Andorra game. Can’t remember for a long time England fans singing derogatory songs about a PM. These lot really are unpopular 

Edited Saturday at 21:01 by Sir Ralph

[rallyboy]

31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

England fans paying their “compliments” to Kier Starmer during the Andorra game. Can’t remember for a long time England fans singing derogatory songs about a PM.  

You've seriously never before clocked any right wing views among England fans?

Over the years one or two have demonstrated leanings I believe.

[Sir Ralph]

38 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

You've seriously never before clocked any right wing views among England fans?

Over the years one or two have demonstrated leanings I believe.

It’s a different crowd now at England. Can’t remember England fans singing about any other PM. Maybe he has come in for special treatment because he is hugely disliked. 

Again, whatever is put as evidence you will try to rebut rather than just accepting the public really don’t like this Government one year in. Just because people are anti Labour / Starmer it doesn’t mean they are right wing. Also the polls don’t lie, including the dramatic decline of the Labour Party, and the polls are the most accurate reflection of society. Today’s signing is a reflection of that. The majority don’t support them or their policies. It’s ok to accept that rather than blindly standing up for them whenever anyone says something negative about them.

Edited Saturday at 22:14 by Sir Ralph

[benjii]

8 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

England fans paying their “compliments” to Kier Starmer during the Andorra game. Can’t remember for a long time England fans singing derogatory songs about a PM. These lot really are unpopular 

Seriously concerned that those knuckle-draggers will get the government they deserve next time.

[rallyboy]

9 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s a different crowd now at England. Can’t remember England fans singing about any other PM. Maybe he has come in for special treatment because he is hugely disliked. 

Again, whatever is put as evidence you will try to rebut rather than just accepting the public really don’t like this Government one year in. Just because people are anti Labour / Starmer it doesn’t mean they are right wing. Also the polls don’t lie, including the dramatic decline of the Labour Party, and the polls are the most accurate reflection of society. Today’s signing is a reflection of that. The majority don’t support them or their policies. It’s ok to accept that rather than blindly standing up for them whenever anyone says something negative about them.

Your computer clearly hasn't read my posts slagging off the government.

 

[AlexLaw76]

10 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s a different crowd now at England. Can’t remember England fans singing about any other PM. Maybe he has come in for special treatment because he is hugely disliked. 

Again, whatever is put as evidence you will try to rebut rather than just accepting the public really don’t like this Government one year in. Just because people are anti Labour / Starmer it doesn’t mean they are right wing. Also the polls don’t lie, including the dramatic decline of the Labour Party, and the polls are the most accurate reflection of society. Today’s signing is a reflection of that. The majority don’t support them or their policies. It’s ok to accept that rather than blindly standing up for them whenever anyone says something negative about them.

The Government is about to reach a whole new level of unpopularity (for them) after the next budget.

 

[aintforever]

39 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The Government is about to reach a whole new level of unpopularity (for them) after the next budget.

 

Would be the same for whoever won the last election given the state of the finances.

[AlexLaw76]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Would be the same for whoever won the last election given the state of the finances.

Not so much that, but the amount of promises they made and about to go back on

[egg]

45 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Would be the same for whoever won the last election given the state of the finances.

They could have under promised and still got elected. Instead they over promised and have under delivered. 

[hypochondriac]

It's possible that reform will get in at the next election and all the usual suspects on here will blame the electorate which is what they do every time a vote happens that they disagree with. 

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's possible that reform will get in at the next election and all the usual suspects on here will blame the electorate which is what they do every time a vote happens that they disagree with. 

I know people disagree with my theory on this, but I would blame those that sneer at those that vote for these kind of parties. I'm yet to be convinced that such overt moral superiority doesn't bolster the support of the 'thick' peoples' party(s) and/or causes (e.g. Brexit)...

Edited yesterday at 10:07 by trousers

[benjii]

 

19 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know people disagree with my theory on this, but I would blame those that sneer at those that vote for these kind of parties. I'm yet to be convinced that such overt moral superiority doesn't bolster the support of the 'thick' peoples' party(s) and/or causes (e.g. Brexit)...

The problem is that the world is increasingly complex and issues are interconnected and it's hard to explain things to the sort of person who would vote for Reform in language that a 10 year old would understand. On top of that, these morons believe every piece of shit they see on Facebook or GB News.

The internet has more or less ruined sensible democracy.

[egg]

21 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know people disagree with my theory on this, but I would blame those that sneer at those that vote for these kind of parties. I'm yet to be convinced that such overt moral superiority doesn't bolster the support of the 'thick' peoples' party(s) and/or causes (e.g. Brexit)...

I don't sneer at them, although I question why anyone would vote for a party to govern us for 5 years based on pretty much one policy, and without looking at everything else that comes from voting for that party. 

I get that people are feeling disaffected, but when you ask them what they actually expect from Reform, all I get is "rid of that cunt Starmer", and "no more boats". 

Brilliant basis for your vote. 

[east-stand-nic]

34 minutes ago, benjii said:

 

The problem is that the world is increasingly complex and issues are interconnected and it's hard to explain things to the sort of person who would vote for Reform in language that a 10 year old would understand. On top of that, these morons believe every piece of shit they see on Facebook or GB News.

The internet has more or less ruined sensible democracy.

Once again an incredibly ill thought out post. How about the other side who believe all the shit they see on lefty changeless and papers? Or is it only right wing people that are thick and believe all they see. Can you seriously not see how fascist and stupid your statements are? incredible. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

It's possible that reform will get in at the next election and all the usual suspects on here will blame the electorate which is what they do every time a vote happens that they disagree with. 

The Uk would be a great place if every Reform voter died. Immigrants could do the thick people’s jobs

[egg]

2 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Once again an incredibly ill thought out post. How about the other side who believe all the shit they see on lefty changeless and papers? Or is it only right wing people that are thick and believe all they see. Can you seriously not see how fascist and stupid your statements are? incredible. 

That's bollox. This forum is testament to left ISH leaning folk being critical of the current government. Feel free to link to the posts praising them. 

Thanks. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That's bollox. This forum is testament to left ISH leaning folk being critical of the current government. Feel free to link to the posts praising them. 

Thanks. 

Only way this cunt can function is grouping everybody. So like SOG although SOG probably has 5 times his intelligence 

[tdmickey3]

44 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Once again an incredibly ill thought out post. How about the other side who believe all the shit they see on lefty changeless and papers? Or is it only right wing people that are thick and believe all they see. Can you seriously not see how fascist and stupid your statements are? incredible. 

No, we all know how utterly stupid you are, you have been called out on it again and again by multiple posters.

Keep banging on and we will keep laughing, you absolute head case

[hypochondriac]

58 minutes ago, whelk said:

The Uk would be a great place if every Reform voter died. Immigrants could do the thick people’s jobs

Like trousers said, that attitude contributes to Reform getting votes.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Only way this cunt can function is grouping everybody. So like SOG although SOG probably has 5 times his intelligence 

Wow that really is insulting.

[aintforever]

5 hours ago, egg said:

They could have under promised and still got elected. Instead they over promised and have under delivered. 

Easy to say that with hindsight but at the time all the parties were promising the Earth and whilst they won by a landslide the margins were very slim. All the fiscal studies at the time said the same thing about the finances so I’m not sure what anyone with a brain would expect. Labour just need to hope there is some improvement in the economy in three or fours years time, the fact that they are as popular as anal polyps now doesn’t matter one bit.