[Politics] The Labour Government

[NorthstandRacoon]

“A government of service” we were told, on repeat. They forgot the “self” bit.

Just seems like no matter the party, they are all just in it for themselves. Cocks. I do hope I'm proved wrong.

 

[abc]

All of this gifts row falls right into the hands of those who don't vote, because they are 'all the same'. It does, however, also prove how bloody out of touch these idiots are in Westminster. I'm quite disappointed at Labours start in government, it has to be said, but f*** me, surely we need to be focussing on the REAL issues which matter, NHS, climate change, education, infrastructure, economy, brexshit, etc etc.

I agree but its not WE that should be focusing on the real issues but the government. This cannot happen, nor can they expect the country to accept their 'hard decisions' if they they cant adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity. This was the problem with the Tories and the evidence, yes evidence, is that Labour are indeed 'just the same'

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

I agree but its not WE that should be focusing on the real issues but the government. This cannot happen, nor can they expect the country to accept their 'hard decisions' if they they cant adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity. This was the problem with the Tories and the evidence, yes evidence, is that Labour are indeed 'just the same'

Agree.

 

[armchairclubber]

I agree but its not WE that should be focusing on the real issues but the government. This cannot happen, nor can they expect the country to accept their 'hard decisions' if they they cant adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity. This was the problem with the Tories and the evidence, yes evidence, is that Labour are indeed 'just the same'

Agree.

We haven't heard so much from the resident Starmerites yet. Are they still at conference?

Meaning the ones who have been dominating threads on here pushing Starmer and his cabal for months and belittling anyone who wanted something different or better or could see exactly what was coming.

They'll probably turn up somewhere attacking the Tories again because that's the only standards they comprehend.

Pathetic W️s

 

[tigertim68]

I agree but it’s not WE that should be focusing on the real issues but the government. This cannot happen, nor can they expect the country to accept their 'hard decisions' if they they cant adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity. This was the problem with the Tories and the evidence, yes evidence, is that Labour are indeed 'just the same'

Dont tell me you were not expecting it , most Labour Party members in positions of power have always been champagne socialists,
can’t wait to get their snouts in the trough

 

[A1X]

I agree but its not WE that should be focusing on the real issues but the government. This cannot happen, nor can they expect the country to accept their 'hard decisions' if they they cant adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity. This was the problem with the Tories and the evidence, yes evidence, is that Labour are indeed 'just the same'

Can you elaborate more on what these examples are of being unable to “adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity”?

The only reason any of these donations are known about is because they have been recorded in the register of member’s interests by Starmer, which makes them all perfectly honest (bar the wrong assignment of one to LOTO office). You can argue with whether or not he should accept them but that’s not the same as claiming it shows a lack of integrity and honesty. They’re not the result of some sort of Woodward and Bernstein deep-dive investigative reporting met with denials by Starmer, they’re in a publicly available document which he filled in.

Compare this to Johnson’s refusal to record the details of the Downing Street flat refurbishment in the same record, which ended up being dragged out with him kicking and screaming. There was also a rule agreed that me,hers of the previous Government shouldn’t have to record everything in this register.

To me, those two things aren’t the same. I don’t know about anyone else, but unless you’re already subscribing to the “they’re all the same” theory I fail to see how anyone else could claim otherwise.

 

[Weststander]

Can you elaborate more on what these examples are of being unable to “adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity”?

The only reason any of these donations are known about is because they have been recorded in the register of member’s interests by Starmer, which makes them all perfectly honest (bar the wrong assignment of one to LOTO office). You can argue with whether or not he should accept them but that’s not the same as claiming it shows a lack of integrity and honesty. They’re not the result of some sort of Woodward and Bernstein deep-dive investigative reporting met with denials by Starmer, they’re in a publicly available document which he filled in.

Compare this to Johnson’s refusal to record the details of the Downing Street flat refurbishment in the same record, which ended up being dragged out with him kicking and screaming. There was also a rule agreed that me,hers of the previous Government shouldn’t have to record everything in this register.

To me, those two things aren’t the same. I don’t know about anyone else, but unless you’re already subscribing to the “they’re all the same” theory I fail to see how anyone else could claim otherwise.

I don’t see dishonesty.

I see honestly lavished with gifts and privileged hospitality.

 

[nevergoagain]

Can you elaborate more on what these examples are of being unable to “adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity”?

The only reason any of these donations are known about is because they have been recorded in the register of member’s interests by Starmer, which makes them all perfectly honest (bar the wrong assignment of one to LOTO office). You can argue with whether or not he should accept them but that’s not the same as claiming it shows a lack of integrity and honesty. They’re not the result of some sort of Woodward and Bernstein deep-dive investigative reporting met with denials by Starmer, they’re in a publicly available document which he filled in.

Compare this to Johnson’s refusal to record the details of the Downing Street flat refurbishment in the same record, which ended up being dragged out with him kicking and screaming. There was also a rule agreed that me,hers of the previous Government shouldn’t have to record everything in this register.

To me, those two things aren’t the same. I don’t know about anyone else, but unless you’re already subscribing to the “they’re all the same” theory I fail to see how anyone else could claim otherwise.

Whilst you are correct that they have been declared, when questioned you get all kinds of cloudy waffle talk which does everything apart from scream integrity. Example: Pat McFadden this morning explaining away that £32k of donations for the clothes were for his presentation as part of campaigning. Absolute bollocks, if you want to be honest and have integrity just say yep he took it, we won't do it again and the story won't have anywhere further to go.

Rayners trip to Manhattan, just happened to have her friends apartment (Yep, Dodgy Alli) and then just happened to have another "friend" who is also an ex Labour MP Sam Tarry stay with her as well but didn't declare he was there. Tell me that this doesn't all sound dodgy with a straight face.

 

[chip]

Can you elaborate more on what these examples are of being unable to “adhere to the very basic principals of honesty and integrity”?

The only reason any of these donations are known about is because they have been recorded in the register of member’s interests by Starmer, which makes them all perfectly honest (bar the wrong assignment of one to LOTO office). You can argue with whether or not he should accept them but that’s not the same as claiming it shows a lack of integrity and honesty. They’re not the result of some sort of Woodward and Bernstein deep-dive investigative reporting met with denials by Starmer, they’re in a publicly available document which he filled in.

Compare this to Johnson’s refusal to record the details of the Downing Street flat refurbishment in the same record, which ended up being dragged out with him kicking and screaming. There was also a rule agreed that me,hers of the previous Government shouldn’t have to record everything in this register.

To me, those two things aren’t the same. I don’t know about anyone else, but unless you’re already subscribing to the “they’re all the same” theory I fail to see how anyone else could claim otherwise.

I know, it's an easy oversight for a lawyer to not spot the difference between their office and clothing. Have all these misrecored donations really been an oversight or error? It's either incompetence or ignorance to have so many errors and that makes normal people believe they aren't very honest and have narcistic values.

So, yes, they are the same, they all detract from public trust and confidence. In my job I have little influence over anyone but have to decline gifts worth over £25 and complete declarations of interest. Many working people have this obligation and its what we expect from our elected "masters".

Depending what attributes we look at, it does seem that politicians over-represent entitled narcicists.

 

[KZNSeagull]

This would explain why Asworth was looking so smarmy at Conference.

The answer to all Labours problems?

Has always been smarmy and I have always thought he comes across as a total arse on TV. If he is the answer, I am not sure what the question is.

 

[A1X]

I don’t see dishonesty.

I see honestly lavished with gifts and privileged hospitality.

Exactly, which is a different discussion entirely.

 

[Chicken Run]

Has always been smarmy and I have always thought he comes across as a total arse on TV. If he is the answer, I am not sure what the question is.

“Get that bigoted women out of here”

 

[Chicken Run]

He’s a popular guy this PM

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don’t see dishonesty.

I see honestly lavished with gifts and privileged hospitality.

But that’s the same in ANY top job. CEOs on ten times Starmer’s salary get lavish gifts, jolly’s to the rugger and branded clothing. The Royal family have been freeloading on our money for years.

The last lot drank the finest wines on the country’s ticket while the plebs were banged up on house arrest. And yet Starmer’s the problem?

Jesus.

 

[Weststander]

But that’s the same in ANY top job. CEOs on ten times Starmer’s salary get lavish gifts, jolly’s to the rugger and branded clothing. The Royal family have been freeloading on our money for years.

The last lot drank the finest wines on the country’s ticket while the plebs were banged up on house arrest. And yet Starmer’s the problem?

Jesus.

In earlier comments I mentioned that's always annoyed me too. With a sycophantic media mentioning "we're privileged to have the presence of _______ in the royal box".

I'd be pleased to see the back of it for all our elected politicians. Pay a decent salary, outlaw all the lavish freebies and gifts.

 

[A1X]

I'd be pleased to see the back of it for all our elected politicians. Pay a decent salary, outlaw all the lavish freebies and gifts.

I actually agree. Unfortunately that means, as you say, a significant pay rise. Something the public, which seems to think all politicians must be punished continuously for the crime of being politicians, will doubtless take umbrage with.

It should be said most donations are actually not for the lavish gifts but around running / staffing offices or election campaigns.