[Politics] The Labour Government

[Guinness Boy]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/university-tuition-fees-labour-rising-b2620447.html

That clip is from a previous decade under a different leader.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article they will also restore maintenance grants which means the overall cost of university will come DOWN for the poorest students.

 

[Is it PotG?]

That clip is from a previous decade under a different leader.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article they will also restore maintenance grants which means the overall cost of university will come DOWN for the poorest students.

Yeah but, no but....

Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

 

[chip]

 

[Guinness Boy]

That’s an absolute travesty of the truth, but such wilful misrepresentation is why I’m absolutely thrilled from head to toe to see Starmer and co so regally f*cking up, and watching his popularity drop to even below Sunak's lowest point.

Johnson's 'crime', such as it was, wasn’t "carousing into the wee small hours night after night" as one of his opponents claimed behind the protection of HoC privilege. Johnson was accused of knowing that there had been at least 3 social gatherings to mark people leaving No 10, despite claiming he didn’t know.

If you don’t think that 'the plebs' were having their own small gatherings in similar circumstances, you’re incredibly naive.

According to the Privileges Committee:

The committee also published new evidence, including a statement from an unnamed No 10 official that there was a "wider culture of not adhering to any rules" in the building.

The official added that birthday parties, leaving parties and end of week gatherings "all continued as normal" during the pandemic.

Same enquiry that also found Johnson deliberately mislead Parliament over it and committed a "Contempt of Parliament".

Boris Johnson report: Key findings from the Partygate inquiry

A report by MPs into whether the former prime minister misled Parliament has finally been published.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yeah but, no but....

Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

So if you say something you should stick to it for the rest of your life, even if circumstances (such as your boss or economic conditions) change massively?

Sounds a bit simple. Some might say foolish. Like, say, sticking with being a Brexiteer.

 

[Is it PotG?]

So if you say something you should stick to it for the rest of your life, even if circumstances (such as your boss or economic conditions) change massively?

Sounds a bit simple. Some might say foolish. Like, say, sticking with being a Brexiteer.

I think you might want the Brexit thread.

 

[abc]

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?

What a silly comment

 

[Guinness Boy]

What a silly comment

Why?

According to the Privileges Committee:

The committee also published new evidence, including a statement from an unnamed No 10 official that there was a "wider culture of not adhering to any rules" in the building.

The official added that birthday parties, leaving parties and end of week gatherings "all continued as normal" during the pandemic.

Same enquiry that also found Johnson deliberately mislead Parliament over it and committed a "Contempt of Parliament".

Boris Johnson report: Key findings from the Partygate inquiry

A report by MPs into whether the former prime minister misled Parliament has finally been published.

www.bbc.co.uk

Do you think they were drinking water? White Lightning? Jam Shed?

 

[armchairclubber]

That clip is from a previous decade under a different leader.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article they will also restore maintenance grants which means the overall cost of university will come DOWN for the poorest students.

I'm genuinely interested to know how much better off the poorest and also other students would be. Obviously different for each category & if claiming maintenance grants (have seen a figure of £3500 mentioned)

With tuition fees reportedly set to rise to £10,500 over 5 years and interest on them I think currently set at 7.3% how much better off would students be with loans after say 5 or 10 years? It's unfortunate that students will still be held in ever increasing debt for a long time.

I don't know if yourself or the accountants on here can help... Or maybe we should just wait an see.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm genuinely interested to know how much better off the poorest and also other students would be. Obviously different for each category & if claiming maintenance grants (have seen a figure of £3500 mentioned)

With tuition fees reportedly set to rise to £10,500 over 5 years and interest on them I think currently set at 7.3% how much better off would students be with loans after say 5 or 10 years? It's unfortunate that students will still be held in ever increasing debt for a long time.

I don't know if yourself or the accountants on here can help... Or maybe we should just wait an see.

It's a 3,500 grant. Assuming that's per year the maths are pretty simple.

 

[armchairclubber]

It's a 3,500 grant. Assuming that's per year the maths are pretty simple.

I see you edited.

Did have a genuine lol though

 

[Is it PotG?]

Why?


Do you think they were drinking water? White Lightning? Jam Shed?

Do you happen to have a copy of the wine list?

Might use it as a source for my cellar.

 

[abc]

Why?


Do you think they were drinking water? White Lightning? Jam Shed?

Sorry, a bit of a quick knee jerk reaction to your post.

First and foremost the fact that Johnson is now irrelevant and what he did is only relevant in that such conduct should never be repeated. He (rightly) lost his premiership, his job and his party lost the lection because of his (and others) conduct. Starmer is now PM and what matters is how he and his party conduct themselves and of course he was elected on the promise of change in this respect. He appears after just 3 months to be the opposite of what he promised and has his nose in the trough more than anyone left in Westminster. So yes, to me, he is now the problem.

But also whilst 'partygate' was yet another example of everything that was wrong with the Tories, the drinking 'fine wine whilst we were all acting like puritans' suggestion is a bit daft. Many, if not most, people did a bit or alot of illegal socialising (though of course this doesn't justify that the bloke setting the rules was also breaking them).

In short Johnson and his cabal were a stain on our democracy and I had very high hopes that Starmer was going to be different. He told us he was going to be different. Thus far the evidence is that he is not.

 

[Flounce]

Sorry, a bit of a quick knee jerk reaction to your post.

First and foremost the fact that Johnson is now irrelevant and what he did is only relevant in that such conduct should never be repeated. He (rightly) lost his premiership, his job and his party lost the lection because of his (and others) conduct. Starmer is now PM and what matters is how he and his party conduct themselves and of course he was elected on the promise of change in this respect. He appears after just 3 months to be the opposite of what he promised and has his nose in the trough more than anyone left in Westminster. So yes, to me, he is now the problem.

But also whilst 'partygate' was yet another example of everything that was wrong with the Tories, the drinking 'fine wine whilst we were all acting like puritans' suggestion is a bit daft. Many, if not most, people did a bit or alot of illegal socialising (though of course this doesn't justify that the bloke setting the rules was also breaking them).

In short Johnson and his cabal were a stain on our democracy and I had very high hopes that Starmer was going to be different. He told us he was going to be different. Thus far the evidence is that he is not.

Captain Hindsight is finding out that things are not as simple as he appeared to think/suggest whilst in opposition. I was all for giving him a go but so far I am not impressed.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Sorry, a bit of a quick knee jerk reaction to your post.

First and foremost the fact that Johnson is now irrelevant and what he did is only relevant in that such conduct should never be repeated. He (rightly) lost his premiership, his job and his party lost the lection because of his (and others) conduct. Starmer is now PM and what matters is how he and his party conduct themselves and of course he was elected on the promise of change in this respect. He appears after just 3 months to be the opposite of what he promised and has his nose in the trough more than anyone left in Westminster. So yes, to me, he is now the problem.

But also whilst 'partygate' was yet another example of everything that was wrong with the Tories, the drinking 'fine wine whilst we were all acting like puritans' suggestion is a bit daft. Many, if not most, people did a bit or alot of illegal socialising (though of course this doesn't justify that the bloke setting the rules was also breaking them).

In short Johnson and his cabal were a stain on our democracy and I had very high hopes that Starmer was going to be different. He told us he was going to be different. Thus far the evidence is that he is not.

Agree with a fair bit of that but not ALL of it. Starmer is different. He's not misleading parliament. He's not breaking laws he himself made. He's being given things he's allowed to be given and declaring them and he's being given protection in the Directors Box at Arsenal, where you cannot buy a seat.

The right wing press are equating that exactly to the last government and I'm pointing out it's not even in the same ballpark. People are falling for it though, which is why NSC's shy Tories keep quiet when Prince William gets protection and director's seats at Villa but not when the country's elected PM gets the same.

When he misleads Parliament and when he breaks his own laws I will condemn him over and over again and I will switch my vote to Green or Lib Dem.

But he hasn't.

 

[Titanic]

Agree with a fair bit of that but not ALL of it. Starmer is different. He's not misleading parliament. He's not breaking laws he himself made. He's being given things he's allowed to be given and declaring them and he's being given protection in the Directors Box at Arsenal, where you cannot buy a seat.

The right wing press are equating that exactly to the last government and I'm pointing out it's not even in the same ballpark. People are falling for it though, which is why NSC's shy Tories keep quiet when Prince William gets protection and director's seats at Villa but not when the country's elected PM gets the same.

When he misleads Parliament and when he breaks his own laws I will condemn him over and over again and I will switch my vote to Green or Lib Dem.

But he hasn't.

[Politics] - The Labour Government

No, of course not. But he should pay the value of the corporate hospitality that he is receiving. He can put his existing ST on whatever is Arsenal's equivalent of the ticket exchange or Arsenal could refund the value of his unused ST (and re-sell) then he coughs up the full going rate for...

www.northstandchat.com

 

[dsr-burnley]

Agree with a fair bit of that but not ALL of it. Starmer is different. He's not misleading parliament. He's not breaking laws he himself made. He's being given things he's allowed to be given and declaring them and he's being given protection in the Directors Box at Arsenal, where you cannot buy a seat.

The right wing press are equating that exactly to the last government and I'm pointing out it's not even in the same ballpark. People are falling for it though, which is why NSC's shy Tories keep quiet when Prince William gets protection and director's seats at Villa but not when the country's elected PM gets the same.

When he misleads Parliament and when he breaks his own laws I will condemn him over and over again and I will switch my vote to Green or Lib Dem.

But he hasn't.

He's claimed that he was in Alli's flat because his son was revising for GCSEs in July. That's misleading.

 

[Guinness Boy]

He's claimed that he was in Alli's flat because his son was revising for GCSEs in July. That's misleading.

Then I expect that’s exactly what a parliamentary standards committee will find him guilty of any time now.

*drums fingers*

 

[Titanic]

Declaring £16000 worth of designer clothes and £2500 for sexy glasses from Lord Alli as 'private office expenses' seems to fit the bill too.

 

[abc]

Agree with a fair bit of that but not ALL of it. Starmer is different. He's not misleading parliament. He's not breaking laws he himself made. He's being given things he's allowed to be given and declaring them and he's being given protection in the Directors Box at Arsenal, where you cannot buy a seat.

The right wing press are equating that exactly to the last government and I'm pointing out it's not even in the same ballpark. People are falling for it though, which is why NSC's shy Tories keep quiet when Prince William gets protection and director's seats at Villa but not when the country's elected PM gets the same.

When he misleads Parliament and when he breaks his own laws I will condemn him over and over again and I will switch my vote to Green or Lib Dem.

But he hasn't.

There is a huge difference between the royals accepting freebies and the PM. The royals are figureheads and do not set or even influence policy. The PM sets policy and every freebie is given to get his ear and gain nfluence