Amen.
There needs to be more focus on the poor and vulnerable pensioners they are throwing under a bus this winter.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The Labour Government
- Thread starter Super Steve Earle
- Start date
There needs to be more focus on the poor and vulnerable pensioners they are throwing under a bus this winter.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Nice bit of Whatsboutery oh and it’s the media to blame
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Or even treat it as a benefit in kind?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?"
Very true. He probably thrashed out the final details of the ASLEF deal with Ray Parlour and Barry from Barnet - regional winner of Manager of the Month for Tops Tiles.
To put that in context the salary of the Prime Minister is approximately £166780. The DPP gets £226000. Even with 20k added on he's on less to run the country than he was on as a civil servant managing just one of its systems.
E.on CEO Leonhard Birnbaum makes an estimated FIVE MILLION a year and the global group had revenues and profits in the BILLIONS.
Eon profits 2023 exceed expectations
Essen - Eon has a strong financial year 2023 behind it. Because the economic dip feared by management did not materialise, profits exceeded the company's own forecasts…
www.energate-messenger.com
So the issue is definitely Starmer's specs and not overcharging corporate robbers mugging off old people.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,827
fuss over Starmer getting some comp tickets is silly, it really doesnt matter. outdone in silliness by the sublime whataboutery and epic pedantry on statistics along the way. well done everyone.
hart's shirt
Well-known member
"Can someone gift the prime minister a designer spade? He wants to keep digging. If Keir Starmer were a celebrity, this week we’d be looking for the black hole in his publicist’s brain. Alas, these are mildly testing times for anyone who bought into the always ridiculous idea of No Drama Starmer. The prime minister has officially graduated into his Some Drama Starmer era, and – like all prime ministers ever – is on the ineluctable journey towards his All Drama Starmer era.
That all this should be taking place in the final weeks of a three-month scare buildup to the budget seems at best unfortunate, and surely something that either one’s chief of staff or political adviser or tailor should have spotted as a danger area. Even while he was wanging on about his corporate hospitality, Starmer was declining to discuss next month’s doom budget on the basis that, “I don’t want to risk putting the fear of God into people.”
Well, it’s a bit late for that. Labour took office and immediately declared things to be so dire that they were going to have to do awful and painful things to combat them – but will have left it three months before they finally explain what those awful and painful things are. This, as the former chief economist to the Bank of England Andy Haldane and many others have pointed out, has created a sense of "fear and foreboding and uncertainty among consumers, among businesses, and among investors”.
But the much bigger vulnerability, in my appraisal, is that thing that maps on to what a lot of people are always, always prone to thinking about Labour: that they’re very free and easy when they’re spending other people’s money.
According to Ipsos polling in the FT today, half of British voters say they are disappointed in how Labour has governed so far, with Starmer’s approval ratings worse than those of any of his predecessors except Liz Truss. Considering that this comes more than a month before the doom-budget outlines their plans for our money, Starmer may find the next set of ratings well worth misplacing his many pairs of spectacles for."
- Marina Hyde
Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ey-keir-starmer-pm-approval-ratings-liz-truss
That all this should be taking place in the final weeks of a three-month scare buildup to the budget seems at best unfortunate, and surely something that either one’s chief of staff or political adviser or tailor should have spotted as a danger area. Even while he was wanging on about his corporate hospitality, Starmer was declining to discuss next month’s doom budget on the basis that, “I don’t want to risk putting the fear of God into people.”
Well, it’s a bit late for that. Labour took office and immediately declared things to be so dire that they were going to have to do awful and painful things to combat them – but will have left it three months before they finally explain what those awful and painful things are. This, as the former chief economist to the Bank of England Andy Haldane and many others have pointed out, has created a sense of "fear and foreboding and uncertainty among consumers, among businesses, and among investors”.
But the much bigger vulnerability, in my appraisal, is that thing that maps on to what a lot of people are always, always prone to thinking about Labour: that they’re very free and easy when they’re spending other people’s money.
According to Ipsos polling in the FT today, half of British voters say they are disappointed in how Labour has governed so far, with Starmer’s approval ratings worse than those of any of his predecessors except Liz Truss. Considering that this comes more than a month before the doom-budget outlines their plans for our money, Starmer may find the next set of ratings well worth misplacing his many pairs of spectacles for."
- Marina Hyde
Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ey-keir-starmer-pm-approval-ratings-liz-truss
To put that in context the salary of the Prime Minister is approximately £166780. The DPP gets £226000. Even with 20k added on he's on less to run the country than he was on as a civil servant managing just one of its systems.
E.on CEO Leonhard Birnbaum makes an estimated FIVE MILLION a year and the global group had revenues and profits in the BILLIONS.
Eon profits 2023 exceed expectations
Essen - Eon has a strong financial year 2023 behind it. Because the economic dip feared by management did not materialise, profits exceeded the company's own forecasts…
So the issue is definitely Starmer's specs and not overcharging corporate robbers mugging off old people.
Politicians, especially those in power, shouldn't receive lavish gifts and hospitality. The public seemed very against it under other PM's, Blair and Johnson were derided for the luxurious holiday freebies laid on for them.
Two separate issues on what parliament/bodies decide is the appropriate pay for ministers and MP's, also the remuneration packages paid by private enterprises. The EU/UK/USA seem to have no appetite to meddle, no matter how much we find it a disgrace.
The BBC ran an article today related to this - there seem to be indications that a government striving for economic growth has, in the short-term at least, scared the shit out of people to the point that some are reducing their economic activity...
A long-running measure of how consumers feel about their finances and the economy has fallen sharply, raising concerns that the government's warning that the Budget will be "painful" has shaken people's confidence.
GfK's Consumer Confidence Barometer has tumbled further into negative territory since the end of August.
The index had been recovering after the years of the Covid pandemic, rising prices and higher interest rates had dented the outlook for many.
GfK said the latest measure did not provide "encouraging news" for the UK's new government, while some economists have linked the drop to Labour's downbeat rhetoric about the Budget.
Consumer confidence tumbles ahead of Budget
Some economists have linked a drop in consumer confidence to officials' warnings of a painful Budget.
www.bbc.co.uk
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
You can do it as slowly as you like but with CPS lawyers reviewing eight cases every day each, the chances of the DPP seeing every single case, with supported evidence is microscopic.
Rape and sexual assault are the hardest cases to prosecute, as victims unfortunately have to prove it, when usually it’s one persons word against the other. They often withdraw their support for the case.
Without immediate DNA evidence, it is the most difficult to bring to trial. Hence the wording realistic prospect of conviction.
It is appalling but women really do feel it increases their trauma rather than bringing justice.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,047
It’s not ‘whataboutery’, it’s all part of the same system and how corporate business, lobbyists and politics has worked for a millenia. Everyone trying to get political access - and political parties depending on funding from their supporters. The political leanings of respective media also play a part in how stories are presented.Nice bit of Whatsboutery oh and it’s the media to blame
Anyone who doesn’t think private sector vested interests and corporate lobbying/favours doesn’t pervade the political life of every developed liberal democracy regardless of party, or that our MSM is not all political impartial when it comes to reporting that is being naive.
The sleaze is when those interests are deliberately and knowingly not declared and trust is broken - every party relies on funding and the key is transparency - especially when if there are questions around unfair political access for unelected influencers or potential scandalous behaviour by elected representatives.
Some Parties deserve the ephithet of being ‘the Party of Scandal and Sleaze’ more than others though.
Is it really this bad?
Last edited:
So, in conclusion, this has always happened but you're not allowed to mention the relative scale as that would be whataboutery?
And do you agree that an organisation turning over billions could easily identify vulnerable customers if they wanted and put them on a lower tariff? And that this would be preferable to hand outs of state benefit?
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
Did John Prescott pay for his luxury seat at Withdean when we were trying to sway him on Falmer?
It’s not ‘whataboutery’, it’s all part of the same system and how corporate business, lobbyists and politics has worked for a millenia. Everyone trying to get political access - and political parties depending on funding from their supporters. The political leanings of respective media also play a part in how stories are presented.
Anyone who doesn’t think private sector vested interests and corporate lobbying/favours doesn’t pervade the political life of every developed liberal democracy regardless of party, or that our MSM is not all political impartial when it comes to reporting that is being naive.
The sleaze is when those interests are deliberately and knowingly not declared and trust is broken - every party relies on funding and the key is transparency - especially when if there are questions around unfair political access for unelected influencers or potential scandalous behaviour by elected representatives.
Some Parties deserve the ephithet of being ‘the Party of Scandal and Sleaze’ more than others though.
Is it really this bad?
View attachment 189136
Good article. On ties with businesses and donors who'd very much their foot in the door, and why this should end.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-without-new-probity-rules-worse-will-follow
This
I bet Tony invited him to the Amex with open arms regardless of political persuations. It's in everyones best interest to have competent governance . . .a few footy/gig tickets is nothing compared to what's been bribed and embezzled this last 15 years.
our press/media is disgraceful.
I won't fall for the very deliberate muddying of the waters with the distraction of the overpaid company boss. Was anyone on nsc saying when Blair and Johnson received lavish gifts, whatabout the salary handed to European utilities bosses?
Sticking to politics and government of the UK, ministers in particular should imho pay for their own way in life. Belatedly declaring it doesn't make it palatable.
They could, for example, have been discussing the football regulator, which Starmer is for but Bloom against (so I hear anyway).
Disgracefully, the BBC suggested this morning that the fact Starmer was an Arsenal fan meant this was now a conflict of interest, rather than the equally compelling argument that he's regularly among ordinary football fans (or was till moved for security reasons). Neutral my arse.
Probably not, because no one at that time was predicting that the European utilities boss was about to kill 4000 pensioners with his prices
The WFP is only an issue because energy isn't fairly priced.This sounds heartbreaking. I am really torn on the WFP issue - precisely because of the things raised above.
But then I do think about the amounts as well, and the contextual changes. I know that much has been mentioned about the increase in the state pension coming in April - but it's also worth looking at last April. In the context of the couple you quote - between them, they will be having a benefit cut of £200 this winter (it's £200 per couple for under 80s). In April 2024 if they were on a full pension, they would have had an increase of £902 each (£1,804 between them - 8.5%) and in April 2025 it will be £460 each (£920). Yes, I know that other prices have risen, but if you look at it as losing £200 of the £1,804 increase over last winter - it does seem to make more sense from the Government's point of view. They will still have had a £1,604 increase in pension since last winter. 7.53%. Not many of us will have had a 7.5% pay rise last year - and none on other benefits had such an increase so far as I know?
Of course, it's harder for single people because the proportion lost is higher. And for those not on a full pension as well.
I'm not defending the Government here - but I can see how they may be viewing it in the round.
Like others though - I would much rather they had taken more time and examined a full impact assessment before bringing this is - as I am sure they would have set the cut-off level higher than it is, and given more thought to how to go about it. Personally I think they would have been better off removing the Triple Lock.
But I guess the point is that he has now given a bigger pay rise to NHS staff (Junior Doctors at least - with presumably others to follow). So - he's actually following in line with the point he was making then - more equal payrises across the board (percentage-wise at least). Of course, he is also being criticised for giving that pay rise to doctors ('giving in' has been mentioned on here).
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
It is.It’s not ‘whataboutery’, it’s all part of the same system and how corporate business, lobbyists and politics has worked for a millenia. Everyone trying to get political access - and political parties depending on funding from their supporters. The political leanings of respective media also play a part in how stories are presented.
Anyone who doesn’t think private sector vested interests and corporate lobbying/favours doesn’t pervade the political life of every developed liberal democracy regardless of party, or that our MSM is not all political impartial when it comes to reporting that is being naive.
The sleaze is when those interests are deliberately and knowingly not declared and trust is broken - every party relies on funding and the key is transparency - especially when if there are questions around unfair political access for unelected influencers or potential scandalous behaviour by elected representatives.
Some Parties deserve the ephithet of being ‘the Party of Scandal and Sleaze’ more than others though.
Is it really this bad?
View attachment 189136