Forum menu
It would be ironic if Starmer, whose leadership campaign was one big lie, lost his job over a very small lie.
Stangely I can't seem to raise any excitement about the prospect of Starmer and Rayner resigning and the thought of the tories/RW press 'winning' again.
I am one of those bastard centralists who spoils everything though.
It would be ironic if Starmer, whose leadership campaign was one big lie, lost his job over a very small lie.
Would it?
Perhaps if Durham Police do find him guilty he's just going to have to fall on his sword now. It would make the contrast between Labour and the Tories even more stark.
Integrity is, unfortunately, something a leader has to demonstrate not just talk about.
I still don't think the Leftwing head bangers would sieze control if the worst does happen, but finding a replacement could well be tough. I'd love to see Raynor in charge, but I don't think it would happen.
I am one of those bastard centralists who spoils everything though.
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people dislike reasonableness and consensus.
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people dislike reasonableness and consensus
Yeah, for sure but you came into the Johnson thread accusing me of being a Brexit supporter before knowing anything about my position.
If you're talking about Centrism then you haven't understood what Centrism is just like you didn't do your research on inflation and made inaccurate comparisons.
I still don’t think the Leftwing head bangers would sieze control if the worst does happen
Don't you just hate when the left-wing headbangers try to take control of a left-wing party? As opposed the right-wing headbangers that have taken control of a left-wing party.
Stick with your position the 'right' are doing a grand job of the country as a whole.
Left wing headbangers take over party, they lose
Right wing headbangers take over party, they lose
Tories forever.
It would be ironic if Starmer, whose leadership campaign was one big lie, lost his job over a very small lie.
I hope he does shuffle off.
I've had enough of him - this scenario is all born out of wasting so much time not pushing the Tories on their biggest weakness - being Tories.
Left wing headbangers take over party, they lose
Right wing headbangers take over party, they loseTories forever.
No solution then?
Just have right-wing parties?
No such thing as an opposition?
As I understood it with Brexit and Corbyn out of the way then a left wing party currently might make hay in the face of the current economic conditions? Tories forever?
Do we really need to toxify what we have to say with playground name-calling like 'headbangers'?
Again, how is the current Labour party 'right' wing, or even centrist when you review the 10 pledges they have given, almost all of those pledges are aimed at the left, and are pretty much set out well and actually sound achievable if labour were to get in, or even get in and set up a coalition with others.
I can see an argument that it is right compared to say Marxism, but against socialist democracy, it looks like it maps pretty well.
Again, how is the current Labour party ‘right’ wing, or even centrist when you review the 10 pledges they have given
The pledges Starmer made for his leadership campaign? He's on record saying that he won't be delivering those. Hence my point about him buying votes from the left with a pack of lies.
Stangely I can’t seem to raise any excitement about the prospect of Starmer and Rayner resigning and the thought of the tories/RW press ‘winning’ again.
It looks much more that it would a case of the right-wing press shooting themselves in the foot to me.
It is hard to imagine that they could possibly have a more compliant Labour Party leader. Last week the Daily Express, which isn't noted for having the Labour Party's interests at heart, was urging Starmer to go further and be more decisive and expell Corbyn and Abbott, two Labour MPs with huge majorities, from the party.
It is hard to imagine another Labour leader more likely to do that. In fact for the sake of party unity and to focus the fight on the Tories I think it is highly likely that any Starmer replacement would reinstate the Labour whip to Corbyn.
I have no idea why the Tory press are gunning for Starmer right now, they had been giving him an extraordinarily easy time up until the local elections.
I would certainly expect them to behave like that come the general election, no doubt about that, but doing it now and creating the likelihood of Starmer being replaced by a more effective Labour leader that fully exploits the daily open goals provided by Johnson seems particularly daft.
Perhaps they simply can't help themselves. I guess you can't always expect the right-wing press to be responsible for clever joined-up thinking.
I have no idea why the Tory press are gunning for Starmer right now, they had been giving him an extraordinarily easy time up until the local elections.
For Rothermere the hint about cracking down on nondoms might have been enough.
Remember the owner of the great British patriotic paper is actually French for tax purposes.
Yeah I guess that might be worried that he might stick to his promise, although I'm not sure why.
Or why another Labour leader would be more sympathetic towards non dom.
They would be better off sticking with the leader least likely to form a Labour majority government.
Yeah I guess that might be worried that he might stick to his promise, although I’m not sure why.
It might have ended up being more effective than planned.
Ultimately they want someone like Blair who wont mess with their interests and so attacking Starmer now might encourage any future candidates to toe the line.
For Rothermere the hint about cracking down on nondoms might have been enough.
He's lived in the UK for yonks, he will already be treated as domiciled here under the 2017 legislation
already be treated as domiciled here
Fake news.
Fake news.
The 2017 legislation is clearly on the statute book, sorry it defeats the latest weirdo conspiracy theory about the Daily Mail.
Don’t you just hate when the left-wing headbangers try to take control of a left-wing party? As opposed the right-wing headbangers that have taken control of a left-wing party.
Stick with your position the ‘right’ are doing a grand job of the country as a whole.
Is Labour a "Left-wing" party anymore though?
I thought it was a party founded by and for the workers, who seem to be backing an old Etonian that wants to remove their right to protest and flog the NHS.
Lets be honest UK politics is much more of a "centrist" game under far more scrutiny from a (mainly RW biased) press these days. The easy Left/Right definitions just don't fit a large swathe of those with a vote. The Torys have demonstrated that headbangers (whichever end of the spectrum) can take control of a main party and co-opt a few fringe issues to get people to vote against their own best interests.
How do you fight such apparent dissonance?
Personally I had no huge issue with Corbyn in policy or personality terms, but the Tory propaganda machine had a field day with him, and proudly wearing the 'further left than most' badge just helped them with that.
He was never going to win in a country that has all but written off far left politics and recoils from anything that looks a bit too "lefty" as if it's one step short of voting for Starlin...
As mundane as it might be I now find myself preferring a rather vanilla, but more electable centre-left Labour to the Further Right Tory party we currently live under, or some even a further to the Left version of Labour.
I don't want Blair-ism or Corbynism TBH; I want "anyone but Boris(-ism)" and so do a lot of people.
It seems that if the Great Unwashed Majority are going to vote for anything other than a corrupt bastard with fluffy hair it's going to be a "sensible" centrist offering from Labour. Present them easily derided "hard-left" policies, fronted by a renegade geography teacher and they'll just choose the Tory Clown again.
Those determined to drag a "moderate" "Centrist" labour back towards the left are just going to help create a split and in doing so gift the next GE to to the Torys.
If you want a harder left party, you might just need to start your own.
2017 legislation is clearly on the statute book
And hasn't impacted on his non-dom status.
sorry it defeats the latest weirdo conspiracy theory about the Daily Mail.
Aside from he still continues to decline to answer whether he is or not and as any weirdo could notice that law still had plenty of loopholes.
As mundane as it might be I now find myself preferring a rather vanilla, but more electable centre-left Labour to the Further Right Tory party we currently live under
The problem with this is we tried the experiment and had the centre dragged hard to the right so that even moderate leftwing policies are portrayed as far left.
So why would it be different this time?
It is curious how effortlessly you repeat the hard right press propaganda.
It looks much more that it would a case of the right-wing press shooting themselves in the foot to me.
I was thinking about this last night and realised I'd overlooked the perfect interim replacement for Starmer while some of the younger crowd get a bit more experience: Ed Miliband. He has a new found confidence which he didn't have in 2015, has a history of taking on the RW press and his credibility and integrity is untouched by covid parties or whatever else. Maybe I'm grasping at straws but I'm struggling to find many negatives for a Miliband leadership going into the next election. Probably irrelevant in any case as it's bound to be Reeves if Starmer goes.
Stand back everyone, the Tories are wheeling out the intellectual big guns
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1523916519004151808?s=20&t=a9DlCKfsuUBUhfhVLVnTZw
https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1523939121965809664?s=20&t=a9DlCKfsuUBUhfhVLVnTZw
find many negatives for a Miliband leadership going into the next election
Miliband mk2 is head and shoulders above the mk1 version from the 2010 and 2015 general election campaigns. He'd be my number one choice now if he didn't have previous as leader (and before that as a key player in the 2010 manifesto and campaign team). He does seem to genuinely understand how "green issues" weave in with economic and social issues going forward, and can communicate that clearly and passionately. But he's too easily painted as "a man of the past" for his time in the Brown cabinet, and his previous stint as leader.
It is curious how effortlessly you repeat the hard right press propaganda.
Perhaps that proves how ingrained it is in our culture now, illustrating the uphill battle Labour now face.
People quote/reference lots of things they don't necessarily believe.
I see James "Cleverly" is still fighting the good fight against the scourge of Nominative Determinism
And hasn’t impacted on his non-dom status.
Any evidence for this weirdo conspiracy theory?
Any evidence for this weirdo conspiracy theory?
Any evidence for what you made up?
He's retained non-dom status. It hasn't been removed despite legislation changes in 2017. Unless you know something no-one else does. Perhaps a link detailing how, or when, or if Lord Rothermere lost his non-dom status. Just one. You can cite weirdo conspiracy theory websites as sources if you want. Go ahead...
You could also correct Wikipedia if you wanted, rather than save the sharing of your knowledge with us...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_non-domiciled_status_in_the_UK
...get the Former "non-doms" section updated to avoid further confusion.
No solution then?
Yep, loads of solutions but none that the current political system and party approach would ever put in place as it would mean they would no longer exist.
Until then we are going to be continually living in a tory country as that is what the people (as per the current system) want more than anything else.
Well it is widely documented he lives in the UK and has done for many years which makes him resident here for tax purposes for a long period certainly before his father's death in 1998. If one is resident for more than 15 out of 20 years you are automatically deemed to be domiciled in the UK under the 2017 legislation(S29 F(No2)A 2017). On this basis, absent any evidence to the contrary the natural conclusion is that he is domiciled here. Even the Guardian noted how the Daily Mail didn't rail against the change in rules despite it impacting their proprietor.
He still has non-dom status. No one has ever said that he's lost it, apart from you. Cite just one source other than your own mind... go ahead... dig as deep into the weirdo conspiracy theory corners if the internet as you want. You concluding that he "should" have lost it, based on your knowledge of the legislature, and your knowledge of his affairs, really doesn't cut it, sorry.
Yep, loads of solutions but none that the current political system and party approach would ever put in place as it would mean they would no longer exist.
Until then we are going to be continually living in a tory country as that is what the people (as per the current system) want more than anything else.
So never offer an alternative - especially when time eventually takes its toll on the Tories.
Roll over and die then.
We've tried a couple of things - we just can't do it?
He still has non-dom status. No one has ever said that he’s lost it, apart from you.
Bless
Go on, cite one source. Doesn’t have to be a tax expert, or someone close to him… any crank will do. Just so we know there’s more than one person in the world who’s come to the same conclusion.
Roll over and die then.
Kerley is our resident 'woe is me' poster. Nothing will ever be better, we're doomed to a tory dystopia forever, resistance is futile, we have to accept it etc.. 🙂
Doesn’t have to be a tax expert
I became a member of the Institute of Taxation in 1988.
That's great, you'll have sources to hand you can cite then. Go on... just one other person saying he's lost non-dom status.
some proof hes not a non-dom would be easy to show then
I doubt it matters if he's non-dom or not, he'll be using tax avoidance and every other avenue available to minimise taxation in any form, it's no different to any other asset owner, be it dukedoms or media empires.
some proof hes not a non-dom would be easy to show then
There's not a register, it is simply an analysis of the law which I have referenced and a broad understanding of his personal circumstances. All long term residents of the UK are now deemed to be domiciled here and have been ever since the 2017 legislation came in.
Any link to someone else coming to the same conclusion? Ideally someone with more than a "broad" understanding of his circumstances. But really, any other voice would do. Just cite one...
All long term residents of the UK are now deemed to be domiciled here and have been ever since the 2017 legislation came in.
Like Mrs Sunak, who has been living in the UK since 2015?
It would seem that there's a loophole for billionaires somewhere?
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
Like Mrs Sunak, who has been living in the UK since 2015?
Long term is at least 15 years in this context.
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
All that says is he didnt complain. Now what could be a logical reason for him not complaining?
To date he has declined to comment on his nondom status. Now admittedly there could be a chance he is worried if he does then he would be expected to answer questions about all his other tax affairs but alternatively it is that he still is one.
He is reluctant to comment on anything, he doesn't give interviews and he lets his editors get on with it. So the theory that the Daily Mail is having a go at Starmer because of his tax status fails on more than one level, but its a nice comfort blanket.
Doesn't Rothermere live in France?
and he lets his editors get on with it.
I would imagine his editors have a fairly fundamental grasp of what he'd like to see in his newspapers without having to check back daily.
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
Doesn't say that is has given up non-dom status. It claims he took a hands off approach to his paper when the 2017 legislation was proposed, and mischaracterised it. Preston was often standing up for newspapers and journalists, of all persuasions. Anyway, the quote...
You might, in other hands, have expected a rampant Mail campaign when the Treasury did away with the non-dom tax status that has served the fourth and third viscounts so well. But no, not a squeak.
Did the Treasury do away with non-dom tax status? No. Have the changes introduced in 2017 resulted in Rothermere losing his non-dom status? 🤷🏻
So the theory that the Daily Mail is having a go at Starmer because of his tax status fails on more than one level, but its a nice comfort blanket.
Whilst I would love to take your condescending word for it I notice that you fail to provide any evidence for your claims.
I've found a Times article from last year that might make the same claim as you... doing some digging behind the firewall...
cookeaa
It seems that if the Great Unwashed Majority are going to vote for anything other than a corrupt bastard with fluffy hair it’s going to be a “sensible” centrist offering from Labour. Present them easily derided “hard-left” policies, fronted by a renegade geography teacher and they’ll just choose the Tory Clown again.Those determined to drag a “moderate” “Centrist” labour back towards the left are just going to help create a split and in doing so gift the next GE to to the Torys.
Nice to see some sense talked on this thread.
I became a member of the Institute of Taxation in 1988.
Swoon.
BTW I showed this thread to my wife, who is a Chartered Tax Advisor. She thinks, like Dissonance, that whilst it's possible he's lost his non-dom status, this hasn't been demonstrated by anything you've presented so far.
Present them easily derided “hard-left” policies
What policies would they be then? Seriously, I can't remember any 'hard left' policies in the last two labour manifestos.
Those determined to drag a “moderate” “Centrist” labour back towards the left are just going to help create a split
There already is a split, created by the leadership and the PLP who won't accept that their members want something different to what they are offering.
I'm a member and I want what they're offering.
You don't, but then you're not a member 😛
In a moment of magnanimous grace I'm prepared for the Sunderland FC supporters club and the S Club 7 fan club to voice opinions that differ to mine as I'm a member of neither, though I would still be of the latter if it wasn't for the restraining order
You don’t, but then you’re not a member
I was a member right up to the point where it became obvious that people like myself weren't welcome. There are around 200k more like me. It doesn't make much sense to be a member of an organisation which I don't support. I might even consider rejoining if Starmer is removed by his own incompetence and Reeves doesn't succeed him, but until then I have as much in common with Labour as I do with the tories or liberal democrats.
She thinks, like Dissonance, that whilst it’s possible he’s lost his non-dom status, this hasn’t been demonstrated by anything you’ve presented so far.
But that is only because we don't know for sure that he has been tax resident for years. To the extent there is any press coverage of him, it strongly suggests he has lived here for a long time (split between Wiltshire and Holland Park) and he has therefore been resident and would accordingly fall within the rules.
But that is only because we don’t know for sure that he has been tax resident for years.
So none of us know? And you're just guessing? Let's leave it there. Schrödinger's non-dom. Less of the "weirdo conspiracy theory" charges please.
But that is only because we don’t know for sure that he has been tax resident for years. To the extent there is any press coverage of him, it strongly suggests he has lived here for a long time (split between Wiltshire and Holland Park) and he has therefore been resident and would accordingly fall within the rules.
Are we not doing argument from authority any more?
Are we not doing argument from authority any more?
It doesn't matter how august you are, if you don't know the precise facts you can never be completely sure but everything points to him being tax resident for a long time, the Times article, likely sloppily worded, also suggests there was a change in circumstance in 2017 so I am very sure I'm right.
Less of the “weirdo conspiracy theory” charges please.
Why, it is what I think, it is like much of the other stuff posted on political threads.
14000!!!!!
Have we reached peak disgruntlement yet?
I've said it before, but the main thing that makes labour difficult to elect as there's two factions (centrist left and harder left) for want of a better phrase, that will happily do each other over even if it means alienating 50% of thier potential voters.
Unless they can present a united front or split themselves into two parties they will remain that way.
Ok there's a glimmour of hope that they will gain votes just because people don't want conservatives, but a lot of those votes will end up with the Lib dems anyway, see the locals just gone...massive lib dem gains compared to very modest Lab gains. so it's hardly a strategy.
Someone has been giving Durham Police a helping hand on Twitter - see below.
In fairness to Sir Keir I'm sure he is very busy all of the time. He may not be able to recall accurately what he did last month / last year and this could account for the inconsistency between some of his comments and the facts to the contrary.
BUT - he's also been very unforgiving of other possibly even more busy people not having an accurate recall of their own actions.
https://twitter.com/Greg_P_C/status/1521597949138063360
so I am very sure I’m right.
That is surprising.
Oh dear, 'GregC' can't even work out how to put together a sentence, and 'Samantha Smith' is one of those really weird young conservatives who seem to have watched Harry Enfield and thought it was a joining campaign instead of a comedy!
I do love how they are weirdly liberal when interpreting the truth, the house party is a good touch, as is the indoor gatherings being banned, well unless you forgot what Tier 2 was, i.e. sports events allowing fans back, pubs pretending that a packet of pork scratchings is substantial so they could open and so on!
It's quite sad that not one news agency has noted the difference between the lockdown and what happened with the tier system, all those people who couldn't have a wedding, or be at a funeral, or see family in hospital, or even form a 'bubble' to have company are being derided by all this, it's as bad as Rishi Sunak seeing the effect of inflation and recession and saying 'i know how you feel' to try and soothe folk on the breadline.
Less of the “weirdo conspiracy theory” charges please.
Why, it is what I think, it is like much of the other stuff posted on political threads.
A fair point imo. I think the across the board onslaught Starmer is currently facing from the right-wing press is unlikely to be connected to the tax status of the Daily Mail's proprietor.
I am sure that even Viscount Rothermere sees a broader picture beyond his narrow tax avoidance needs. Besides, he can't be responsible for other newspapers suddenly taking off the kid gloves with regards to Starmer.
The question therefore is why has Starmer recently started to receive the same treatment in the last few days that the previous leader was receiving on a daily basis, you know the relentless attacks on his character and personality, and which ironically Starmer connived to instigate.
Having established that in your opinion the alleged nom dom connection is a weirdo conspiracy theory why then, in your opinion, have the right-wing press recently taken a particularly hostile attitude towards Starmer, or would you deny that they have?
I am genuinely interested in your opinion mefty as you are sadly about the last remaining alternative Tory opinion on stw.
I’ve said it before, but the main thing that makes labour difficult to elect as there’s two factions (centrist left and harder left) for
Lol.
It's always centre-left and HARD left.
HARD is not on a sliding scale with centre.
The majority of the problems lies with calling something 'hard' that simply intends to use the state to to improve the standard of living rather than using the market (via the state) to allocate resources to bring about an improvement of standards of living.
The centre is not the centre in this context
Always thought they used the terms soft left and hard left as descriptors, centre left is just something to denote that side of the argument.
It's a tabloid term - hard left.
Soft left I've never really heard used.
A riding buddy of mine once referred to me as being "centre-left". Seeing it as an insult I remonstrated with him insisting that I was not centre-left but left-wing.
He responded with "I was trying to be polite".
Having established that in your opinion the alleged nom dom connection is a weirdo conspiracy theory why then, in your opinion, have the right-wing press recently taken a particularly hostile attitude towards Starmer, or would you deny that they have?
I personally have never subscribed to there being some sort of co-ordinated action. I am afraid I also believe newspapers follow their readership rather than the other way round. I think it is simply Starmer has been caught in an awkward situation and it makes a "good" story. Likewise he (and much of his front bench) looks like an idiot(s) when he can't define a woman and that makes a good story too. I think then a momentum can then build up which keeps the pressure on which causes mistakes to be made and it becomes a vicious circle. This is conjecture.
Corbyn was a special case because of his historic support for the IRA, the general anti Western outlook of Stop the War and the views of various other organisations he was associated with. The conservative press detested everything about him.
rone
Free Member
It’s a tabloid term – hard left.Soft left I’ve never really heard used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_left
I personally have never subscribed to there being some sort of co-ordinated action. I am afraid I also believe newspapers follow their readership rather than the other way round. I think it is simply Starmer has been caught in an awkward situation and it makes a “good” story.
I tend to agree that coordinated action by the right-wing press is unlikely and that a good story/scandal has more influence on what they print.
I don't really agree with you that right-wing papers follow their readers rather than the other way round. A good chunk of Daily Mail readers don't vote Tory, probably somewhere in the region of 18-20% vote Labour and a probably a similar amount vote LibDem, are you seriously suggesting that the Daily Mail isn't 100% pro-Tory in it's editorial policy?
And do you believe that News International switched from decades of supporting the Tories and backed New Labour because of pressure from Sun and Times readers, and not cosy little chats between Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair?
I agree even less with your opinion on why there was intense hatred towards Jeremy Corbyn from the right-wing press. It had nothing to do with his views decades earlier on how to resolve the Troubles.
Like many on the left, myself included, Corbyn saw that the Troubles could not be resolved through a military solution, which at the time was the policy of both Tory and Labour governments. Instead he argued that only a political solution could resolve the endless violence and that would involve talking to all sides, including obviously the IRA.
A strategy which was finally fully embraced by your former party leader John Major, after the removal of Margret Thatcher's toxic influence, and which ultimately brought peace to NI.
Your claim that Corbyn supported the IRA is even more false than the claim that John Major and Tony Blair surrendered to the IRA.
For decades the right-wing press had no problem with Corbyn and his past views on NI. All that changed when he ceased to be a backbencher and became party leader.
Suddenly they started to hate him. Not because of his past but because of the very real threat he posed to those with power and wealth. His commitment to fighting for peace in NI was simply used as a stick to beat him with, as you have just done by accusing him of supporting the IRA - which btw would have resulted in immediate expulsion from the Labour Party. History doesn't condemn Corbyn, it vindicates him.
Thanks for answering btw.
Edit: Btw mefty did you see me mention the other day that one of my local councillors is a former full member of the IRA? She is close to the new Tory mayor of Croydon, like him she is in the Tory Party.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1523710871758794752?s=20&t=TJoVwpNFau-2CgfAofFJMg
STW fiasco! Sort it out peeps.