[Politics] The Labour Government

rippleman · Friday at 2:08 PM

Back to "perks", here is an extract from the Civil Service code relating to gifts:-

35 . Gifts should normally be refused or returned where you have direct involvement in decisions affecting the giver, or where they are estimated to be worth more than £25. Where a gift above the £25 threshold cannot be refused or returned without damaging relations, you should inform your staff manager and the Compliance Officer in writing of the circumstances.

So £25 is your lot if you are a civil servant irrespective of whether said civil servant is directly involved in "decisions affecting the giver".

That is twenty-five pounds. Not tens of thousands of pounds.

Why should the PM be getting perks significantly higher than those the Crown employs?

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Starmer is not able to PAY for his corporate hospitality at Arsenal? I understand and accept WHY he has to be in corporate hospitality but I don't get why he can't PAY for it.

Herr Tubthumper · Friday at 2:13 PM

rippleman said:
And I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Starmer is not able to PAY for his corporate hospitality at Arsenal? I understand and accept WHY he has to be in corporate hospitality but I don't get why he can't PAY for it.

Starmer was in the boardroom at the AMEX. How would you pay for this? Slip Tony a few quid?

Bry Nylon · Friday at 2:19 PM

Herr Tubthumper said:
Starmer was in the boardroom at the AMEX. How would you pay for this? Slip Tony a few quid?

I heard that he PISSED on the coat rail whilst waving a wad of tenners and shouting, "somebody find me a receipt pad without sequential numbers."

I'm as shocked as anybody, tbh :nono:

Zeberdi · Friday at 2:24 PM

Bozza said:
You know as well as anyone else that the government, somewhat shamefully, neglected to undertake an impact analysis on this policy.

Only from the few posts I have followed on here - but that’s my point. No impact assessment has been carried out, no one has actually died yet so no post mortems have been carried out - we don’t even know how many will die of the flu this winter (or Covid) - no one in their right minds can honestly say without having a crystal ball yet with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that 1,000s WILL DIE as a DIRECT result of the withdrawal of winter fuel payments? That is what is being pushed on this thread. All we can say at the most is that IF some pensioners who are outside the pension credit cut off can’t afford to use their heating, there is a strong likelyhood or a reasonable probability that it could impact negatively on the overall winter mortality levels this winter.

Bozza said:
The closest we have, I guess, is Labour's own analysis in 2017 when they believed the Tories were going to remove the payment from all but the poorest pensioners...

The Conservatives’ policy of means testing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners could contribute to almost 4,000 extra deaths this winter, Labour has said.

Exactly “could”

Bozza said:
That would mean 10 million people who currently receive the annual payment missing out – though Labour claims the true figure could be higher, since many who are eligible for pension credit do not claim it.

‘could’

Bozza said:
Labour cited research saying that half of the almost 10,000 decrease in so-called “excess winter deaths” – the rise in mortality that occurs each winter – between 2000 and 2012 was due to the introduction of the winter fuel allowance, and suggested that could be reversed by the Conservatives’ policy.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ce-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour

‘Could be’

To say “1,000s WILL DIE’ is sensationalist hyperbole made to make a political point.

I know you are not a stupid person and know the difference between rational and sensible projections (as you posted here) based on previous research evidence as part of an honest debate (which I am not disputing or have an issue with) and outright, hyperbolic scaremongering for political stick waving based on pure conjecture.

Herr Tubthumper · Friday at 2:26 PM

Bry Nylon said:
I heard that he PISSED on the coat rail whilst waving a wad of tenners and shouting, "somebody find me a receipt pad without sequential numbers."

I'm as shocked as anybody, tbh

Two Tier Tony! Coat rail in the boardroom whilst we're left to put our outer garments on the backs of our chairs in 1901. One rule for the haves, and another for the have nots.

Bozza · Friday at 2:28 PM

Zeberdi said:
Only from the few posts I have followed on here - but that’s my point. No impact assessment has been carried out, no one has actually died yet so no post mortems have been carried out - we don’t even know how many will die of the flu this winter (or Covid) - no one in their right minds can honestly say without having a crystal ball, how many people so how ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY 1,000s WILL DIE as a DIRECT result of the withdrawal of winter fuel payments? That is what is being pushed on this thread. All we can say at the most is that IF some pensioners who are outside the pension credit cut off can’t afford to use their heating, there is a strong likelyhood or a reasonable probability that it could impact negatively on the overall winter mortality levels this winter.

Exactly “could”

‘could’

‘Could be’

To say “1,000s WILL DIE’ is sensationalist hyperbole made to make a political point.

I know you are not a stupid person and know the difference between rational and sensible projections based on previous research evidence (which I am not disputing) and outright scaremongering for political stick waving based on pure conjecture.

In case you don't realise it, this is how you are coming across.

Flounce · Friday at 2:30 PM

Herr Tubthumper said:
Two Tier Tony! Coat rail in the boardroom whilst we're left to put our outer garments on the backs of our chairs in 1901. One rule for the haves, and another for the have nots.

You and your f***ing demands for coat rails :lolol:

I am more concerned about the wobbly tables for milk and sugar for half time coffee. ALL of them wobble :angry:

Thunder Bolt · Friday at 2:33 PM

Is it PotG? said:
He was also in charge in 2009 when it was decided to bring no charges against Al Fayed.

Yes, that is being spread around X/Twitter by ignorant people who have no idea how cases are reviewed.

Herr Tubthumper · Friday at 2:36 PM

Flounce said:
You and your f***ing demands for coat rails

I am more concerned about the wobbly tables for milk and sugar for half time coffee. ALL of them wobble

All of them wobble you say? Herr Tubthumper strokes his chin with suspicion and considers that maybe it's @Flounce which is unstable? :lolol:

Flounce · Friday at 2:37 PM

Herr Tubthumper said:
All of them wobble you say? Herr Tubthumper strokes his chin with suspicion. Maybe it's you that's unstable?

If you didn’t have corporate hospitality with a meal every game, where you don’t have to do anything for yourself, you’d know this is a FACT :lolol:

Edit - apologies for going very off piste on this thread

Zeberdi · Friday at 2:51 PM

Bozza said:
In case you don't realise it, this is how you are coming across.

View attachment 189128

Seriously? Comparing me to a dictator and accusing me of lying?

That is incredibly disingenuous.

Please quote anything from any of my posts that I have come close to suggesting that pensioners and other vulnerable people do not die from cold weather or there are not excess deaths in the winter months.

I have said several times there could be additional mortalities if people cannot afford to use their heating as a result of this blanket withdrawal. Not once have I said ‘no pensioners will die’ if they can’t afford their heating. That’s ridiculous.

I am just not going to predict with absolute certainty that “thousands” of pensioners “will” die this winter directly because of this.

I don’t have a crystal ball.

I have said I don’t support this policy and also have a problem with cash for influence/freebies for political access.

I am not sure what more you want from me other than to utterly condemn wholeheartedly this new Labour Government- which I am not going to do because I think they are getting more right than they are wrong.

rippleman · Friday at 3:05 PM

Herr Tubthumper said:
Starmer was in the boardroom at the AMEX. How would you pay for this? Slip Tony a few quid?

Splendid whataboutery sir! I guess you don't have the answer to the question:-

"Why can't Starmer PAY for his corporate hospitality at the Emirates?" :shrug:

rippleman · Friday at 3:08 PM

Herr Tubthumper said:
Starmer was in the boardroom at the AMEX. How would you pay for this? Slip Tony a few quid?

I assume that he was there by invitation as a guest of the club. A one-off. That is totally different to effectively being given a FREE corporate hospitality season ticket by the club he supports.

But then you already knew that.

Is it PotG? · Friday at 3:11 PM

Thunder Bolt said:
Yes, that is being spread around X/Twitter by ignorant people who have no idea how cases are reviewed.

Ok, let's do this slowly.

In 2008, Fayed, the then owner of Harrods, was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police under caution after a 15-year-old girl told detectives he had sexually assaulted her at the London department store.

In February 2009, when Sir Keir was director of public prosecutions (DPP), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that no charges would be brought because there was “no realistic prospect of conviction”.

Weststander · Friday at 3:11 PM

nicko31 said:
Personally I'd make taxing the dead and the super rich the priority, a one off wealth tax would be good.

The issue with with the pensioners have got used to doing better than the working population, its what kept the Tories in power for so long.

A few will fall between the cracks but
you can't please everyone. Triple lock maintained...

Debt to GDP just hit 100%, gotta living within our means

Millions of pensioners are poor or just about make ends meet. Whilst a load of working age people, especially age 40 upwards are sitting pretty.

It's not good to generalise about entire age groups.

chip · Friday at 3:15 PM

Zeberdi said:
I am just not going to predict with absolute certainty that “thousands” of pensioners “will” die this winter directly because of this.

Good get out, how about > 4000? You use obfuscation and offence a lot, you know what the confidence level is in that prediction, you have access to the information and can guess some methodology. You'll start saying that you can't predict with certainty that the sun will tise tomorrow morning and anyone who bases future decisions on that idea is talking nonsense.

Bold Seagull · Friday at 3:35 PM

Bry Nylon said:
I don't care what Sue Gray earns but Dom Cummings salary certainly was mentioned at the time. You must have missed it.

In fact some bloke called Keir Starmer tweeted about it in a deeply critical manner, making a comparison to nurses pay.

Without getting pedantic, actually getting pedantic he tweeted about the pay rises not the salary.

Bold Seagull · Friday at 3:37 PM

Bozza said:
You've pointed me to a paywalled article I can't read.

But, I've navigated around that to try to find what you are referencing.

It's this bit here: "One way to see Sue Gray’s £170,000 a year salary is that it is less, in real terms, than Ed Llewellyn was paid when he was David Cameron’s chief of staff, and less, both in real terms and compared with average wage growth, even than Dominic Cummings’ salary in 2020."

Unfortunately, you seem to have misinterpreted it as your "without even allowing for inflation" is patently false.

The reason I queried your "fact" is that, having looked at all this yesterday, I knew there are strictly-defined pay bands for Spads and, before the redrafting which permitted Sue Gray to be awarded a £170k salary, the maximum Spad salary was £145k, meaning it was impossible for Cummings to be paid more as a Spad than Gray is.

Fortunately for us all, this stuff is reported each year, so we can verify that by checking The Cabinet Office's
Annual Report on Special Advisers 2020 which is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd8b0688fa8f54d58640d60/Annual_Report_on_Special_Advisers_2020_-_online_publication__1_.pdf.

In there we can read: "Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings are in the process of leaving their government posts and are not included in
the above list. They are, however, included in the December FTE numbers. Both individuals were in PB4 and
pay band £140,000-£144,999."

The figure for Cummings was widely reported as £140k and my GCSE maths has £170k being greater than £140k.

As I say, none of this matters. I believe people in jobs of this seniority should be paid considerably more.

Facts, eh?

This is why I needed a good accountant!

Zeberdi · Friday at 3:42 PM

chip said:
Good get out, how about > 4000? You use obfuscation and offence a lot, you know what the confidence level is in that prediction, you have access to the information and can guess some methodology. You'll start saying that you can't predict with certainty that the sun will tise tomorrow morning and anyone who bases future decisions on that idea is talking nonsense.

How is what any of what I have posted ‘offensive’ or ‘obfuscation ’? A ‘good get out’ from what?

If one were to say 1,000s could die as a result of the withdrawal of the winter fuel assistance to those above pension credit level income, I am fine with saying that. If one says up to 4,000 could die, I am fine with that too. That is a valid opinion, albeit still an opinion and is based on reasonable medical evidence and historical impacts.

What I am not fine with because I think it is pure politicking, are categorical pronouncements of the sort that state how many people of those that are just above the cut off level WILL die (ie 1,000s) because they will not turn on their heating as a direct result of not receiving the £200-300 annual payment. Even the research Boz posted above does not use that language of certainty when challenging Conservative policy - all through the documents, are described as ’possible’ and ‘could’ happen.

Of course we can predict that the sun ‘will‘ rise tomorrow - it would be irrational to entertain a serious notion that it might not and to suggest that is an equivalent comparison is ridiculous .

Clearly we disagree so let’s leave it at that before it starts getting personal.

I make no apologies for voting in this Government, despite disagreeing with some of the policy approaches, including withdrawing extra help if it results in real hardship but I maintain they are doing a better job already on a number of issues than the previous one so let’s give them a chance before throwing the baby out with the bath water

Pavilionaire · Friday at 3:50 PM

So prospective - and now actual PM - Sir Keir Starmer has averaged £20K a year in freebie for the last 5 years. Who cares?? That's just one big lunch to Boris and his Bullingdon buddies.

Sue Gray earns £170K a year - that'll buy you one tennis match with Boris Johnson if you are the wife of a Russian oligarch.

It is pathetic that the new government is being peppered with these trivial stories in a sad attempt to strangle it at birth. What is WRONG with our media?? Run the stories if you must, but try being even-handed and tell how Starmer is overseeing pay agreements being signed with striking unions to help get Britain back to work.

Everybody loses with stories like this. Who knows who Starmer was meeting at these freebie events? Presumably he was making some useful introductions and contacts with people who can help clear up this Tory mess.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The Labour Government

Well-known member

Well-known member

Test your smoke alarm

“Vorsprung durch Technik”

Well-known member

You can change this

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

“Vorsprung durch Technik”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Thrifty non-licker

Well-known member

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

strong and stable with me, or...

“Vorsprung durch Technik”

Well-known member

Share this page