I would put money on Starmer not being leader by the next election. His personal rating would a through the floor, from what I can tell through the media the party members are going off him, his policies have caused bad optics.
I think one of the many n problems is they are not really pushing positives. They are constantly telling us how bad the last government was. They say we are going to have to pay for the Cons incompetence. It is a constant flow of bad news. They need to start being more positive.
I would put money on Starmer not being leader by the next election. His personal rating would a through the floor, from what I can tell through the media the party members are going off him, his policies have caused bad optics.
I think one of the many n problems is they are not really pushing positives. They are constantly telling us how bad the last government was. They say we are going to have to pay for the Cons incompetence. It is a constant flow of bad news. They need to start being more positive.
Problem is that members can't get rid of him. The only mechanism is a leadership challenge from within the PLP and that just means replacing Starmer with a different smooth faced tory (probably Streeting) because if nothing else is certain the PLP will never let a socialist be a leadership candidate again.
I seem to remember it was ok for the Tories to say we had to pay for Labour incompetence (when it was the fault of US lending institutions) for at least five years.
Labour didn't get five weeks when it actually was the Tories' fault. (Yes, to some extent Labour is repeating the Tories' error by sticking withing their tax and spending guidelines, but the press would really go after them for not doing so.)
I read now that Starmer has managed to enable Rosie Duffield to leave claiming the moral high ground.
She's much older than the new intake, isn't trusted by the leadership, wasn't going to get a ministerial job, and ironically because Labour have moved in her direction on trans rights wasn't going to get to be kicked out as a martyr.
So she has 4-5 years as an independent to think up another grift.
This is a mistake. The way to get out of the mess is to spend more not cut infrastructure.
I've heard some whispers about some of the spending cuts yet to be announced and they seem.. stupid. Short term it makes the budget look better, long term there are big impacts.
Labour supporters are saying we are not getting austerity. In the strict definition of the word we are not. What Labour are doing will feel no different.
Getting back to the Universal Winter Fuel payment. Energy prices are rising something like 10%. That cut just got more cruel
Sir Keir has announced clear and unambigious support for Israel following the missile attack from Iran. Well done Sir.
Is it "well done" to support an aggressor rather than supporting those who are attacked? The region has endured a century of aggression from Zionist terrorists and later Israeli government acting like terrorists with better bombs, with the people of Palestine responding to those acts of terror supported by other nations in the region. It doesn't help declaring that Israel has a right to defend itself, without acknowledging that the people of Palestine have the same rights of self defence. It doesn't help to condemn missile attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran without condemning attacks by the Israeli airforce. It doesn't help to give clear and unambiguous support for Israel without giving clear and unambiguous support for the people of Palestine or Lebanon.
I'd give a "well done" from me if he'd made a statement that at least acknowledges the complexity of a situation that to a very large extent is a creation of the Israeli government over many decades and Zionist terrorists, if he'd called for working towards a just solution where everyone in the region gets to live safely in their own homes, including the people of Palestine where millions are still living in refugee camps after being forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. He has a legal background, he should be able to recognise the need for justice, and not be supporting illegal activities by the Israeli government - an attack against another nation, organising random explosions of electronic devices in urban areas, the murder of Palestinians in the West Bank to force them off their land to allow Jewish settlers to steal their land for new settlements, etc.
Sir Keir has announced clear and unambigious support for Israel following the missile attack from Iran. Well done Sir.
Is it "well done" to support an aggressor rather than supporting those who are attacked? The region has endured a century of aggression from Zionist terrorists and later Israeli government acting like terrorists with better bombs, with the people of Palestine responding to those acts of terror supported by other nations in the region. It doesn't help declaring that Israel has a right to defend itself, without acknowledging that the people of Palestine have the same rights of self defence. It doesn't help to condemn missile attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran without condemning attacks by the Israeli airforce. It doesn't help to give clear and unambiguous support for Israel without giving clear and unambiguous support for the people of Palestine or Lebanon.
I'd give a "well done" from me if he'd made a statement that at least acknowledges the complexity of a situation that to a very large extent is a creation of the Israeli government over many decades and Zionist terrorists, if he'd called for working towards a just solution where everyone in the region gets to live safely in their own homes, including the people of Palestine where millions are still living in refugee camps after being forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. He has a legal background, he should be able to recognise the need for justice, and not be supporting illegal activities by the Israeli government - an attack against another nation, organising random explosions of electronic devices in urban areas, the murder of Palestinians in the West Bank to force them off their land to allow Jewish settlers to steal their land for new settlements, etc.
Quick and final response. Israel have not started any of the current problems
Of course the attacks on October 7th last year were horrendous and evil. Of course it is unacceptable that Hezbollah fires rockets at civilians in Northern Israel but the ideal that you can look at these things in a vacuum is foolish. Quite apart from any moral analysis, as a practical matter, pretending that history began on October 6th 2023 makes solving these problems impossible.
Here's a fact for you that Israel needs to come to terms with (my source, by the way is the former head of MI5): Around 80% of Hamas fighters are orphans of parents killed in previous exchanges. To a large extent, Israel created Hamas. I'm all for self-defence but collective punishment of a whole people and indiscriminate attacks with huge civilian body counts make Hamas' recruitment easy.
Now, Hamas is an evil death cult, there's no denying that but Israel cannot achieve security this way.
Host hat on @Telford when a Host or Admin has said “any further discussion” belongs on another thread or board “any” means what it says. Any response, whether ‘quick and final’ or not is out of order. It is a breach of Commandment 6, and liable to attract Admin attention under Commandment 1. If you have anything further to say in this matter you must take it to Styx. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
I didn’t. Anyway, I have some sympathy for Starmer in this. Giving back money could be read two ways.
One: He is doing the right thing.
Two: It is a tacit admission that something was wrong.
It depends on how you see it
Over on the other thread @alienfromzog made the comment:
Here's the thing. It is objectively a fact that the series of stories - some fair criticism, some ridiculous and at least one, vile - are related to the fact that the government have declared everything. The political reporters are patting themselves on the back for the amazing scoops they've achieved by reading the register of interests.
Which frankly I find a little bizarre; they shouldn't be scrutinised because they opened themselves up to scrutiny? In the realm of deeply dysfunctional things, this is as close to functional as it gets. There's still the question of influence to be explored.
Over on the other thread @alienfromzog made the comment:
Here's the thing. It is objectively a fact that the series of stories - some fair criticism, some ridiculous and at least one, vile - are related to the fact that the government have declared everything. The political reporters are patting themselves on the back for the amazing scoops they've achieved by reading the register of interests.
Which frankly I find a little bizarre; they shouldn't be scrutinised because they opened themselves up to scrutiny? In the realm of deeply dysfunctional things, this is as close to functional as it gets. There's still the question of influence to be explored.
I'm not denying that. As I have said before, I would be go a very long way towards restricting everything.
However, factually:
1. The previous government accepted lots and lots of gifts
2. The previous government was very careless about declarations
3. The new government has been very scrupulous about declaration
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
Declaration of Interests is vital but not sufficient for preventing corruption.
As I said, some of the stories are fair criticism. I am all for scrutiny.
However it is also the case that openess which is a good thing is being presented as corruption. Which it isn't. It could be but on evidence thus far available, it isn't. Openess is also being presented as evidence that the Tories were fine because they hid all this - which is, of course far more concerning.
The story of Margaret McDonough MP and her sister is particularly telling that there is a media agenda here. Unless there's part of the story still to come out here, this is a hill I will die on. Neither she nor Lord Alli have done anything wrong but his act of kindness to a friend has been weaponised against them both. Why? Because she declared it all correctly.
I think you're still missing the astonishing tactlessness of this when combined with attacks on pensioners, low income families and disabled people.
Someone will give a free suit? Great - there are people who need that to go to a job interview, and they wont need such a pricey suit - you can buy quite a few of them,
Someone has money to burn for specs? Great - give them to people to buy the kind of nice magnifying devices that dont come free on the NHS for folk who are visually impaired
Somebody wants to give money to a Labour project - fantastic - there are lots of people who cant heat their homes and afford to eat - that's where the money should go - that's a great Labour project.
Until Labour stop making cuts that affect disabled people and those on low incomes none of them should take a penny which doesn't go to charity beyond very obvious fighting fund and campaigning needs
When they've lifted the two child cap, stopped benefit sanctions, raised benefits so foodbanks aren't needed, tackled heating costs and made sure everyone has heating, stopped ballyhooing that disabled people should be pushed into work or have their bank account spyed on etc. then we can talk about the concert tickets and the clothes and I might accept that people who are doing such a good job for others might be allowed a few perks so long as they dont go overboard with it. Till then that money belongs with Labour's casualities not in their politicians pockets
It is apparently possible to donate direct to the treasury - but that was only a significant source of money received during the pandemic.
and after the First World War - Stanley Baldwin famously (after his death, it was anonymous at the time) donating nearly £8m in today's money (or 20% of the Baldwin family money) to the Treasury to pay off the national War Debt in 1919, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
He was a bit too much of a gentleman though, because although he wrote an anonymous letter to the papers claiming to have done it (in the guise of essentially 'someone who can afford to do so'), in the hope of encouraging others to do likewise, the fact that he wasn't open about who he was along with proof that he genuinely had done so meant it fell a bit flat... but his heart was in the right place.
Labour just seem to be letting the press take them for a ride. They should be doing more damage limitation. There is very little from 10 Downing Street on this. Maybe they think they can wait it out. They need to get hold of the narrative somehow. That is difficult but they seem not to be trying
In the interests of fairness, Baldwin's gesture/ploy wasn't a complete flop - others did come forward in response. But it might have worked better if he'd had his name against it in his lifetime (and certainly at the time).
I think you're still missing the astonishing tactlessness of this when combined with attacks on pensioners, low income families and disabled people.
Someone will give a free suit? Great - there are people who need that to go to a job interview, and they wont need such a pricey suit - you can buy quite a few of them,
Someone has money to burn for specs? Great - give them to people to buy the kind of nice magnifying devices that dont come free on the NHS for folk who are visually impaired
Somebody wants to give money to a Labour project - fantastic - there are lots of people who cant heat their homes and afford to eat - that's where the money should go - that's a great Labour project.
Until Labour stop making cuts that affect disabled people and those on low incomes none of them should take a penny which doesn't go to charity beyond very obvious fighting fund and campaigning needs
When they've lifted the two child cap, stopped benefit sanctions, raised benefits so foodbanks aren't needed, tackled heating costs and made sure everyone has heating, stopped ballyhooing that disabled people should be pushed into work or have their bank account spyed on etc. then we can talk about the concert tickets and the clothes and I might accept that people who are doing such a good job for others might be allowed a few perks so long as they dont go overboard with it. Till then that money belongs with Labour's casualities not in their politicians pockets
No. I am separating out the different strands of these stories.
Labour just seem to be letting the press take them for a ride. They should be doing more damage limitation. There is very little from 10 Downing Street on this. Maybe they think they can wait it out. They need to get hold of the narrative somehow. That is difficult but they seem not to be trying
I don't think it's a plan to wait it out. I think it's just that their media operation is not properly up and running. They need to sort this. I think they will.
A generous person might forgive them as they weren't expecting the election when it happened but in the autumn. They were working to a time table that changed and had to do things very quickly. The King's Speech contained a lot of bills, and was put together quite smartly.
A less generous person would call them naive and unprofessional. Not least because they knew the media would treat them very differently to how they treated the other lot.
Yes, I think Starmer looks like a rabbit in the headlights, well, they all do. I guess they will adjust. But I think Louise above is quite right, but of course it a govt by right wing Labour. I think people are still equating Labour with Left or socialism. Not really.
You may remember that recently Angela Rayner had a holiday in Ibiza. Whilst on holiday, she was invited into the DJ booth. I've seen the pictures.
Now, I would hate almost everything about this but she was having fun and so who cares.
Well apparently the DJ booth thing is an extra you can pay for... who knew? The DJ quits fancied the free publicity from inviting Ms Rayner and she was having fun and arguably not a bad image for one who wants to appeal to younger voters.
Are you with me so far?
If anyone seriously considers this corrupt, you're going need a very good argument to make me take it seriously.
Oh but it's a story...
All over Twitter than Rayner’s holiday was a freebie!
Nope. She paid for her own flights and accommodation.
But because the DJ booth thing has monetary value she declared it.
As she's supposed to.
As I said, some of the stories are fair criticism. Most of it is nonsense and deeply, deeply disingenuous.
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
Ok. Tell me, if we'd worked together on a project, would you consider giving me £15 for some celebratory drinks?
I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
The problem is that even if each donation is defensible, there's also a pattern, and that in itself is worthy of comment.
Part of the issue is that the press coverage tends to focus on individuals and shy away from examining things from a systemic perspective, which makes criticism easier to dismiss as sour grapes or similar.
OK I will play devils advocate and make the argument - Lord Ali wants a Labour win, in theory making the Labour leader and his wife appear more press friendly (fancy clothes etc) means they appear a more attractive prospect to the voters. Likewise leader not being distracted during crucial campaign by worrying about son.
So is donating clothes, any worse/better than donating money to the Labour campaign in any other way ?
I think the assumption they’d make much difference is flawed - but arguably, what Lord Ali thinks he is “buying” is a Labour victory.
CAVEAT Firstly, as said above, I’d rather politicians in general did not accept expensive gifts - rather than accept them and write them on a register. Secondly, I think reporting on this should also include reporting on anyone else in parliament accepting gifts. Thirdly, I doubt a Labour peer *really* needs to donate to be heard in internal Labour Party discussions - he’s already party of the governing party.
Thirdly, I doubt a Labour peer *really* needs to donate to be heard in internal Labour Party discussions - he’s already party of the governing party.
But there are Labour peers and Labour peers, not every one of which will necessarily be close to the leadership. Just as there are Labour MPs whose existence Starmer rarely acknowledges.
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
I didn’t. Anyway, I have some sympathy for Starmer in this. Giving back money could be read two ways.
One: He is doing the right thing.
Two: It is a tacit admission that something was wrong.
It depends on how you see it
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
I didn’t. Anyway, I have some sympathy for Starmer in this. Giving back money could be read two ways.
One: He is doing the right thing.
Two: It is a tacit admission that something was wrong.
It depends on how you see it
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
I didn’t. Anyway, I have some sympathy for Starmer in this. Giving back money could be read two ways.
One: He is doing the right thing.
Two: It is a tacit admission that something was wrong.
It depends on how you see it
Yesterday Scottish Labour lost two council by-elections it was expected to win really easily despite pouring lots of campaigning resources into them and Anas Sarwar himself coming up to campaign. They were important as they would have made Dundee Council change hands from the SNP if they'd won. The SNP vote fell but a lot of Labour supporters didn't vote.
Labour insiders told the Daily Record (which is a Labour supporting paper) that what they kept hearing from voters was about the 'freebies' plus withdrawal of winter fuel allowance as to why they wouldn't be supporting them.
So there you go - not only wrong but self-defeating.
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
Ok. Tell me, if we'd worked together on a project, would you consider giving me £15 for some celebratory drinks?
A shared round of drinks at a bar is a far cry from celebrating by buying you tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothes and accessories.
I think the assumption they’d make much difference is flawed - but arguably, what Lord Ali thinks he is “buying” is a Labour victory.
I'm sure the pass Starmer gave to Alli granting him unrestricted access to 10 Downing Street came as a completely unexpected surprise and was in no way linked to the gifts whatsoever.
Which amounts to 21.7 bn over 25 years to fund largely - from the context of the article - carbon capture technologies. Apart from the inherent issues with the idea of carbon capture at least one of the things she mentions is a re-labelling of the existing Teeside Freeport.
Comments
I think one of the many n problems is they are not really pushing positives. They are constantly telling us how bad the last government was. They say we are going to have to pay for the Cons incompetence. It is a constant flow of bad news. They need to start being more positive.
Problem is that members can't get rid of him. The only mechanism is a leadership challenge from within the PLP and that just means replacing Starmer with a different smooth faced tory (probably Streeting) because if nothing else is certain the PLP will never let a socialist be a leadership candidate again.
Labour didn't get five weeks when it actually was the Tories' fault. (Yes, to some extent Labour is repeating the Tories' error by sticking withing their tax and spending guidelines, but the press would really go after them for not doing so.)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
She's much older than the new intake, isn't trusted by the leadership, wasn't going to get a ministerial job, and ironically because Labour have moved in her direction on trans rights wasn't going to get to be kicked out as a martyr.
So she has 4-5 years as an independent to think up another grift.
She has sent him a scathing resignation letter.
Treasury asking each department for plans for further *infrastructure* cuts.
I've heard some whispers about some of the spending cuts yet to be announced and they seem.. stupid. Short term it makes the budget look better, long term there are big impacts.
Getting back to the Universal Winter Fuel payment. Energy prices are rising something like 10%. That cut just got more cruel
I'd give a "well done" from me if he'd made a statement that at least acknowledges the complexity of a situation that to a very large extent is a creation of the Israeli government over many decades and Zionist terrorists, if he'd called for working towards a just solution where everyone in the region gets to live safely in their own homes, including the people of Palestine where millions are still living in refugee camps after being forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. He has a legal background, he should be able to recognise the need for justice, and not be supporting illegal activities by the Israeli government - an attack against another nation, organising random explosions of electronic devices in urban areas, the murder of Palestinians in the West Bank to force them off their land to allow Jewish settlers to steal their land for new settlements, etc.
Doublethink, Admin
Of course the attacks on October 7th last year were horrendous and evil. Of course it is unacceptable that Hezbollah fires rockets at civilians in Northern Israel but the ideal that you can look at these things in a vacuum is foolish. Quite apart from any moral analysis, as a practical matter, pretending that history began on October 6th 2023 makes solving these problems impossible.
Here's a fact for you that Israel needs to come to terms with (my source, by the way is the former head of MI5): Around 80% of Hamas fighters are orphans of parents killed in previous exchanges. To a large extent, Israel created Hamas. I'm all for self-defence but collective punishment of a whole people and indiscriminate attacks with huge civilian body counts make Hamas' recruitment easy.
Now, Hamas is an evil death cult, there's no denying that but Israel cannot achieve security this way.
AFZ
As per @Doublethink's prior direction, any further discussion of the Middle East needs to go to the dedicated thread in Epiphanies.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Noted.
@Telford when a Host or Admin has said “any further discussion” belongs on another thread or board “any” means what it says. Any response, whether ‘quick and final’ or not is out of order. It is a breach of Commandment 6, and liable to attract Admin attention under Commandment 1. If you have anything further to say in this matter you must take it to Styx.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/02/labour-peer-waheed-alli-under-lords-investigation
Meanwhile Sir Keir is returning a shedload of goodies.
https://news.sky.com/video/starmer-its-right-to-repay-gifts-13226763
From that story:
"It is understood that the investigation relates to a clerical element of some of Alli’s already declared interests, and not to donations."
So, what's your point?
AFZ
I assumed the "sugar daddy" slur was to continue to spread the pathetic rumours about Starmer's sexuality.
I didn’t. Anyway, I have some sympathy for Starmer in this. Giving back money could be read two ways.
One: He is doing the right thing.
Two: It is a tacit admission that something was wrong.
It depends on how you see it
Which frankly I find a little bizarre; they shouldn't be scrutinised because they opened themselves up to scrutiny? In the realm of deeply dysfunctional things, this is as close to functional as it gets. There's still the question of influence to be explored.
I'm not denying that. As I have said before, I would be go a very long way towards restricting everything.
However, factually:
1. The previous government accepted lots and lots of gifts
2. The previous government was very careless about declarations
3. The new government has been very scrupulous about declaration
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
Declaration of Interests is vital but not sufficient for preventing corruption.
As I said, some of the stories are fair criticism. I am all for scrutiny.
However it is also the case that openess which is a good thing is being presented as corruption. Which it isn't. It could be but on evidence thus far available, it isn't. Openess is also being presented as evidence that the Tories were fine because they hid all this - which is, of course far more concerning.
The story of Margaret McDonough MP and her sister is particularly telling that there is a media agenda here. Unless there's part of the story still to come out here, this is a hill I will die on. Neither she nor Lord Alli have done anything wrong but his act of kindness to a friend has been weaponised against them both. Why? Because she declared it all correctly.
AFZ
Someone will give a free suit? Great - there are people who need that to go to a job interview, and they wont need such a pricey suit - you can buy quite a few of them,
Someone has money to burn for specs? Great - give them to people to buy the kind of nice magnifying devices that dont come free on the NHS for folk who are visually impaired
Somebody wants to give money to a Labour project - fantastic - there are lots of people who cant heat their homes and afford to eat - that's where the money should go - that's a great Labour project.
Until Labour stop making cuts that affect disabled people and those on low incomes none of them should take a penny which doesn't go to charity beyond very obvious fighting fund and campaigning needs
When they've lifted the two child cap, stopped benefit sanctions, raised benefits so foodbanks aren't needed, tackled heating costs and made sure everyone has heating, stopped ballyhooing that disabled people should be pushed into work or have their bank account spyed on etc. then we can talk about the concert tickets and the clothes and I might accept that people who are doing such a good job for others might be allowed a few perks so long as they dont go overboard with it. Till then that money belongs with Labour's casualities not in their politicians pockets
and after the First World War - Stanley Baldwin famously (after his death, it was anonymous at the time) donating nearly £8m in today's money (or 20% of the Baldwin family money) to the Treasury to pay off the national War Debt in 1919, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
He was a bit too much of a gentleman though, because although he wrote an anonymous letter to the papers claiming to have done it (in the guise of essentially 'someone who can afford to do so'), in the hope of encouraging others to do likewise, the fact that he wasn't open about who he was along with proof that he genuinely had done so meant it fell a bit flat... but his heart was in the right place.
No. I am separating out the different strands of these stories.
I don't think it's a plan to wait it out. I think it's just that their media operation is not properly up and running. They need to sort this. I think they will.
A generous person might forgive them as they weren't expecting the election when it happened but in the autumn. They were working to a time table that changed and had to do things very quickly. The King's Speech contained a lot of bills, and was put together quite smartly.
A less generous person would call them naive and unprofessional. Not least because they knew the media would treat them very differently to how they treated the other lot.
You pays your money...
AFZ
You may remember that recently Angela Rayner had a holiday in Ibiza. Whilst on holiday, she was invited into the DJ booth. I've seen the pictures.
Now, I would hate almost everything about this but she was having fun and so who cares.
Well apparently the DJ booth thing is an extra you can pay for... who knew? The DJ quits fancied the free publicity from inviting Ms Rayner and she was having fun and arguably not a bad image for one who wants to appeal to younger voters.
Are you with me so far?
If anyone seriously considers this corrupt, you're going need a very good argument to make me take it seriously.
Oh but it's a story...
All over Twitter than Rayner’s holiday was a freebie!
Nope. She paid for her own flights and accommodation.
But because the DJ booth thing has monetary value she declared it.
As she's supposed to.
As I said, some of the stories are fair criticism. Most of it is nonsense and deeply, deeply disingenuous.
AFZ
P.s. for reference: https://x.com/MonkEmma/status/1841850767143002114?t=Qgm4QAq5iVJXrZ2kPiMjww&s=19
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
Ok. Tell me, if we'd worked together on a project, would you consider giving me £15 for some celebratory drinks?
The problem is that even if each donation is defensible, there's also a pattern, and that in itself is worthy of comment.
Part of the issue is that the press coverage tends to focus on individuals and shy away from examining things from a systemic perspective, which makes criticism easier to dismiss as sour grapes or similar.
So is donating clothes, any worse/better than donating money to the Labour campaign in any other way ?
I think the assumption they’d make much difference is flawed - but arguably, what Lord Ali thinks he is “buying” is a Labour victory.
CAVEAT Firstly, as said above, I’d rather politicians in general did not accept expensive gifts - rather than accept them and write them on a register. Secondly, I think reporting on this should also include reporting on anyone else in parliament accepting gifts. Thirdly, I doubt a Labour peer *really* needs to donate to be heard in internal Labour Party discussions - he’s already party of the governing party.
But there are Labour peers and Labour peers, not every one of which will necessarily be close to the leadership. Just as there are Labour MPs whose existence Starmer rarely acknowledges.
Just bringing you up to date
I was not aware of these rumours.
I am opting for Two
On what basis other than you don't like him?
Labour insiders told the Daily Record (which is a Labour supporting paper) that what they kept hearing from voters was about the 'freebies' plus withdrawal of winter fuel allowance as to why they wouldn't be supporting them.
So there you go - not only wrong but self-defeating.
A shared round of drinks at a bar is a far cry from celebrating by buying you tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothes and accessories.
I'm sure the pass Starmer gave to Alli granting him unrestricted access to 10 Downing Street came as a completely unexpected surprise and was in no way linked to the gifts whatsoever.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/04/carbon-capture-labour-green-revolution-britain-industry-jobs
Which amounts to 21.7 bn over 25 years to fund largely - from the context of the article - carbon capture technologies. Apart from the inherent issues with the idea of carbon capture at least one of the things she mentions is a re-labelling of the existing Teeside Freeport.