So it turns out that the Tories in the Conservative Party don't have a monopoly over cronyism and crass incompetence.
Here in Centrist paradise, Croydon, the Tories in the Labour Party (who are busy expelling lefties) are every bit a match:
The report concludes by asking councillors to consider passing the document to the police for investigation of possible misconduct in public office. It also recommends they review the £437,000 settlement paid to the council’s former chief executive, Jo Negrini.
After accepting the payoff in 2020, Negrini issued a statement saying she had left the council with “all the structures” in place to see it through. Within ten weeks Croydon was bankrupt.
The litany of failures under Negrini — who has been dubbed “Negreedy” by council staff angry at the size of her payout — is huge.
This is why in Blairite Croydon Labour actually lost control to the Tories last year whilst in sharp contrast in Corbynite Islington Labour actually consolidation their power and romped home:
But it is Corbyn supporters that get expelled. Not one single right-wing Croydon Labour member has been expelled - despite scandals ranging from council property unfit for human habitation to £millions gone missing hitting the national headlines.
Criticising Israel's treatment of Palestinians is considered a worse crime than cronyism and crass incompetence, which costs £millions and causes immeasurable misery.
Expect more bumbling and spluttering rubbish from Miliband today about energy windfall taxes to pay for things - sigh - when the government (OFGEM) can simply to just cut bills if they need to. (Note Labour's windfall 'tax' doesn't cover the difference by their own calculations.)
Yes - the power is already there and it doesn't need to be paid for.
(They're lowering the Cap BTW - but the subsidy will go so prices bills still going up - It's a Tory sham of course but drivelling on about windfall tax is gush of the highest order.)
Also - 'Fully costed' illiteracy again! Labour front bench idiots assemble.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1629903824377851905?s=20
She *thinks* the private sector must pay for the public sector! LMFAO. Does the private sector have a secret printing machine; which the monopoly issuer of the pound - HMG - doesn't have access too? Surely that would be illegal if the private sector could just create money to lend the public sector.
FACT: all money that the private sector swaps for Government bonds - the National 'debt' - was created by government earlier in the cycle.
It's ludicrous.
telling ITV News: “He’s a colleague, he’s a friend and he’s led us through some really difficult times in the Labour Party.
That was just before Starmer became Labour leader. Then once he became leader:
However, asked by Jewish News three months later whether he would call Mr Corbyn a friend, Sir Keir replied: “No.”
The inconsistency and lies (never the lack of integrity involved in stabbing in the back someone you have publicly called a friend) might be easily ignored and brushed under the carpet now, but it will be much harder when as Prime Minister he will be under the spotlight and held to account.
Interesting times ahead imo.
Yeah I saw this - Starmer's mission just gets more ruthless without focus on the things that matter
Have you seen the Broxtowe job?
https://twitter.com/broxtowelabour/status/1630607834458079255?t=SHRFm-WrWXnv6noQfjCg_w&s=19
Democracy and current Labour are two different things.
If it still says Democratic Socialist on the membership card ... It should say Corporate Tory Baby Party
This is not a good interview given by Starmer this morning:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-sue-gray-chief-of-staff-refuses-to-say/
He might well be totally correct when he says that nothing "improper" occurred.
In which case why the **** does he look so incredibly uncomfortable and repeatedly tries to deflect the question with nonsense like "I met her when I was Director of Public Prosecution"?
He is clearly squirming in that interview which doesn't look good for someone who has nothing to hide.
Voters are understandably cynical and distrustful of the honesty of politicians, Starmer needs to answer direct questions with direct answers and if he can't manage that learn not to sound like a bullshitting schoolboy.
He obviously needs to go shopping for an image consultant as well as a chief of staff.
I heard that - I couldn't work out why it was so difficult for him to answer the question.
I think Sir K is dancing on a pinhead for a couple of possible reasons:
1. He's repeatedly stressed he had no contact with Sue Gray "during" her inquiry. Which naturally begs the question - what contact did he or members of his team have with her before, during and after?
2. He has declined to share his own messages with Sue Gray whilst regularly calling for messages between ministers to be revealed. Why?
3. The Civil Service Code of Conduct specifically prohibits all contact between civil servants and members of HM's Opposition unless the contact is specifically authorised * in advance * by the relevant Dept Minister. He has obfuscated whether Sue Gray requested or received that permission before discussing the CoS role with him.
Either way, the apparent obfuscation is noticeable - not just his own but also refusing to address whether Sue Gray herself stuck to the Civil Service rules that we would have been well aware of. And as others have said - it's just another own goal from someone who trades on his "laser" like attention to detail and integrity.
And then there's the curious matter of Rupa Huq, who was quietly re-admitted to Labour last week even though Starmer himself said her recent comments on Kwasi Kwarteng were in his view "racist" and has repeatedly pledged to drive out racism from his party.
He's not even in power (yet) but seems to making exactly the same errors of judgement he criticises in others.
Seems the epitome of a westminster bubble story
Tories must be desperate if this is all they have in the midst of a cost of living crisis & a 20pt poll deficit
Sunak seems to be silent on this, he knows if they block Grays appointment they look petty & desperate
Its only really the Johnsonian outriders that are pushing this, they see it as a way to weaken the case against Johnson re partygate
Tories must be desperate if this is all they have in the midst of a cost of living crisis & a 20pt poll deficit
No one party seems to give a stuff about the cost of living in my opinion.
This whole short term manoeuvring around a huge looming problem is pretty daft - economically.
But then again most folk around seem to be concerned with potholes... go figure.
Its only really the Johnsonian outriders that are pushing this, they see it as a way to weaken the case against Johnson re partygate
Since Acoba also applies to ministers the brighter ones should getting a tad nervous about demanding it actually starts having some real enforcement capability.
Trouble is, most of labours attacks on the tories over the past few years haven't been policy but instead attacking their character and honesty. A large part of their strategy just seems to be that we will just do the same things better with more integrity. SKS has made "Westminster bubble" politics his major attack line, and when their is even the appearance of throwing stones in glass houses, it is frankly embarrassing
He should have been offering an alternative legislative direction, and highlighting that tory policy, that is against the interest of the majority, is borne from their attitude of entitlement and greed as demonstrated by partygate and cronyism, instead of pushing them to the front and policy to the back.
Labour is constantly challenging the government on policy. You're not following politics very closely if you think otherwise. The reason that the character of government members is coming to the forefront of public debate is two fold... most people are voting for people to govern for them, not just represent then, and that means the character and decision making of politicians is as important as any individual policy signposted up front that might not survive contact with real world events (Covid and Russian invasions being key recent events that show that clearly)... and in addition, many members of this government have so clearly shown themselves to be unsuitable for government and in it for what they can get that it's hard for people to not point, stare, and shake their heads at them. Repeatedly.
Seems the epitome of a westminster bubble story
...if this is all they have ...
Tory supporters might say that about partygate.
"When did you first approach Sue Gray to be your Chief of Staff" was a perfectly legitimate question for Nick Ferrari to ask and for Starmer to answer.
It is something which voters, outside the "Westminster Bubble", might well want to know the answer to. After all Sue Gray is responsible for a report which is highly critical of a PM, it is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask when was she first approached by the Opposition to work for them.
What is wrong with that?
If Starmer doesn't know the answer he should explain why. If he does know the answer but refuses to give it he should also explain why that is.
This is hardly a question which will have been sprung unexpected on him, it's been in the news for days, why does he seem so unprepared?
Saying “I met her when I was Director of Public Prosecution” is clearly not an acceptable answer as it has nothing to do with the question - would you accept avoiding questions like that from a Tory politician?
As MSP points out lack of integrity, and lack of straightforward honesty, has been central to Labour's attacks on the Tories, rather than policy. So it doesn't look good when the leader of the Labour Party is clearly squirming, looks anything but relaxed, and refuses to answer a direct question without giving any sort of explanation.
Labour is constantly challenging the government on policy. You’re not following politics very closely if you think otherwise.
Along with the majority of voters then. Most people do not know how Labour's policies on the economy, health, international relations, transport, education, social services, wages, etc differentiate from those of the Tory Party, but they are fully aware of Labour's criticism of Tory lack of integrity and honesty.
It is clear that Labour's attacks on the Tories has not focused on policy. In fact Keir Starmer even proudly announced that he had "wiped the slate clean" and would come up with policies before the next general election.
Indeed you supported that strategy yourself Kelvin saying that the general election was too far away to worry about policy, apparently, according to you, Labour only needed to come up with policies to put to the electorate when the general election campaign kicked off.
It is something which voters, outside the “Westminster Bubble”, might well want to know the answer to.
Really?
You're comparing over 100 fines for breaking lockdown in downing St, during which the rest of us were unable to see relatives, friends or go to the pub
With some tedious details of what the policy was on when you can move to another job?
I'm sure starmer will look silly if gray did break the rules (and it's gray, not starmer that would have done)
But I don't see how it moves the dial on much of anything
It's even in danger of rumbling on to overshadow Hunts budget and extending fuel help, which would be funny as that's a policy that actually effects peoples lives
Labour is constantly challenging the government on policy. You’re not following politics very closely if you think otherwise
You don't need to follow closely to know that is simply not true.
Indeed you supported that strategy yourself Kelvin saying that the general election was too far away to worry about policy, apparently, according to you, Labour only needed to come up with policies to put to the electorate when the general election campaign kicked off.
Well yeah, exactly. How many times have you reminded us the policies will come ... at some point.
The policies keep coming from Labour. They don't make up a full manifesto yet, and won't do 'till an election, but we already know more about what Labour plan to do, and how, than we did about either May or Johnson's governments' polices when those two won their elections. And Starmer has been clearer than Truss or Sunak across a whole range of policy briefs... yet both of them got to be PM and make everything up on the hoof without even asking for our votes, never mind explaining to us their plans or detailing their policies. What's Suank's? "Reduce inflation" (that everyone predicts will fall without/despite his interventions). Great. Just an excuse to pay lower wages.
Really?
You’re comparing over 100 fines for breaking lockdown in downing St, during which the rest of us were unable to see relatives, friends or go to the pub
With some tedious details of what the policy was on when you can move to another job?
Well very obviously I am not. It is the "no one is interested in this" attitude.
You dismiss it as "tedious detail". It's not, it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, with no obvious reason not to answer it. In fact by squirming and avoiding giving an answer Starmer simply added more interest in the story.
If Starmer had answered on "the 15th January", for example, we wouldn't be discussing it now, it would have been put to bed.
People are entitled to be reassured that Sue Gray wasn't approached by the Opposition whilst she was investigating the behaviour of a PM, there is nothing strange in that.
'Long term plans for growth,' 'partnerships with business,' failure to support striking workers makes fairly clear that the policies will be more austerity, trickle down nonsense and jam tomorrow.
People are entitled to be reassured that Sue Gray wasn’t approached by the Opposition whilst she was investigating the behaviour of a PM, there is nothing strange in that.
A quick note here. Sue Gray didn't investigate the behaviour of the PM, she compiled a report that published submissions from her colleagues about what went on in those offices. The Tories are free to stand up and point out anything incorrect or wrong about what she published, or if it was incomplete or selectively edited they can expand and add to it. As for the gap between what Johnson said in parliament, and what he actually did... there is an enquiry they can make submissions to. If Johnson want's to set the record straight, he has a golden opportunity to do so at that enquiry. Sue Gray wasn't a judge handing down a sentence on Johnson, she was just a civil servant delivering a pretty dry report on what she was told by her co-workers... at his request (not his first choice, but we know why that was).
Sue Gray didn’t investigate the behaviour of the PM, she compiled a report that published submissions from her colleagues
She complied a report which investigated (among other things) the behaviour of the PM. I am not sure why you want to split hairs over this - it doesn't explain why Starmer couldn't answer a direct question with a direct answer.
If your point is that Sue Gray's role in the report was minor and of no great importance then great - so when did Starmer first approach her to be his Chief of Staff?
As Nick Ferrari points out he doesn't have to answer the question. But why doesn't he?
we already know more about what Labour plan to do
The only thing as a layman I know is that labour have ruled out better integration with the EU, so that makes them tories in my book.
Perhaps it's the only policy you care about Matty, so all you've paid attention to. And he hasn't, he's just ruled out the solutions at this point that you consider the most desirable... Single Market and Customs Union... yet he's already asking the obvious question... "why can't we have access to European markets in the way that Northern Ireland does"... the answer to which is "alignment on standards and cooperation on imports and exports beyond Europe"... it's a long slow path to that though... and in itself could be said to be a very (old) Tory approach, yes... no UK wide party with MPs in parliament would have complained about that approach as a minimum a decade ago... they'll all be back there in another decade.
Perhaps it’s the only policy you care about Matty
Labour have policy other than tory style pandering to the right wing press? well, I must have been asleep when they announced those 🙂
he’s just ruled out the solutions
I know.
Its only really the Johnsonian outriders that are pushing this, they see it as a way to weaken the case against Johnson re partygate
Or it could remind everyone that he broke his own law.
I know is that labour have ruled out better integration with the EU, so that makes them tories in my book.
That isn't true, Labour claim to want closer ties with the EU:
But if that is the only issue that matters to you mattyfez why have you urged people on here to vote LibDem - surely it would make more sense to vote Rejoin?
This is what the Leader of the LibDems has to say about Brexit:
Davey counters that the UK’s relationship with Europe isn’t at the forefront of voters’ minds. “When I’m on the doorstep, people don’t talk about the House of Lords; they don’t talk about Brexit. What they’re talking about is the health service,” he said. “Voters are not blaming Brexit.
Davey says he doesn’t worry about what the other parties do. Instead, he wants “our campaigning party to be listening to the people in the seats that we think we can win. And there is no doubt in my mind, I see it poll after poll, talking to these canvassers at the weekend, that it is the NHS, and it’s the economy, particularly energy bills, food bills [that voters care about].”
In common with Keir Starmer’s Labour, the Lib Dems have become wary of mentioning Brexit. At the 2019 general election, when the party vowed to revoke Article 50 and stop the process of leaving the EU, Davey’s predecessor, Jo Swinson, lost her East Dunbartonshire seat (having earlier boasted that she could become prime minister).
You might not be able to let go of the issue as the most important one in UK politics but the leaders of the three main parties have
That isn’t true, Labour claim to want closer ties with the EU:
That's behind a pay wall, so irellevant by default.
Labour catagorically dismiss SM & CU membership amongst other things... you can't bend it both ways, you're either in favour or not.
This Corbyn-esqe idea that people will just trust you if you keep them in the dark, wore thread bare several elections ago.
This fallacy that people keep pushing that 'brexit is done and finished' Just goes to show how short sighted some people are.
You said:
labour have ruled out better integration with the EU
I call pledging closer ties with the EU exactly that. If you want something that isn't behind a paywall (you should know about the 12ft ladder btw) here you are:
https://www.politico.eu/article/labours-keir-starmer-to-pledge-better-deal-for-farmers-with-eu/
he promised Labour would “talk to our friends in the European Union” and “seek a better trading relationship for British farming.”
You have now decided to move the goalposts and claim you mean a commitment to rejoin the single market.
Since according to you it is the only issue that matters, and are urging people to vote LibDem, where is Ed Davey clear commitment to rejoin the single market?
As you can see from the interview he gave the New Statesman Ed Davey doesn't even want to talk about brexit, never make the argument for rejoining the single market.
Why aren't you urging people to vote for the Rejoin EU Party?
You have now decided to move the goalposts
I dont have any 'goal posts' as you put it, leaving the EU was a catastrophic failiure by UK Government, and 51% of voters.
pledging closer ties with the EU exactly that.
I'm pretty sure we had closer ties a few years ago, and with Cherrys on top.
Since according to you it is the only issue that matters, and are urging people to vote LibDem
Urm...I'm not sure I'm 'urging' anyone to vote for anything... I may lean slightly toward the lib dems, but they are just as weak as the larger two parties. Granted I may have advocated voting Lib dem in recent history, but it seems they are juat as spinless as labour and the conservatives.
You appear to have edited your post, I didn't notice this earlier:
This Corbyn-esqe idea that people will just trust you if you keep them in the dark, wore thread bare several elections ago.
How the hell did Jeremy Corbyn come into this debate?
Are you suggesting that by not treating Brexit as the number one issue all the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK are taking the same attitude as Corbyn did? Several elections ago apparently.
Granted I may have advocated voting Lib dem in recent history, but it seems they are juat as spinless as labour and the conservatives.
Fair enough if you have changed your mind about the LibDems.
I think the forum just had a bit of a glitch, the page wouln't load.
How the hell did Jeremy Corbyn come into this debate?
He refused to take a line on brexit, as he was Anti EU, but feared losing votes so he sat on the fence like a lame duck.
He was also pivotal as leader of Labour at the time of the refurendum, yet refused to see sense, the silly old guffer that he is.
Fair enough if you have changed your mind about the LibDems.
Your words, not mine, please try to refrain from putting words into my mouth, its very disrespectfull, and doesn't help your angle, whatever that is.
Fair enough if you have changed your mind about the LibDems.
Where is this from? is this the 'whilst in a minotity coalition with the tories' and then something about Uni fees?...
I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't put any words into your mouth. You have apparently changed your opinion of the LibDems, and I just said fair enough.
Or did I misunderstand your words? They seem quite clear to me:
Granted I may have advocated voting Lib dem in recent history, but it seems they are juat as spinless as labour and the conservatives.
Where are the words that I put into your mouth?
I also have no idea what the former leader of the Labour Party has to do with the policies of the current Labour and LibDem leaders. I will assume it was just some sort diversionary tactic and the opportunity to call him a "silly old guffer".
I will agree that his stance on Brexit was shite, trying to keep people like you sweet instead of respecting the referendum result, but it is hardly relevant to today.
I will agree that his stance on Brexit was shite
Well, at least we have some common ground.
trying to keep people like you sweet instead of respecting the referendum result, but it is hardly relevant to today.
I'm gonna have call you out here, the referendum result built on lies? that's almost like justifying a war by saying Ukraine want to be part of Russia, so the narrative to the press was clear... it's bonkers.
that’s almost like justifying a war by saying Ukraine want to be part of Russia
Get a grip. You might not agree with Starmer's position on Brexit but claiming that accepting the referendum result is almost like justifying war in Ukraine is one hell of a leap to make.
Hyperbole, much?
Why can’t starmer honour the referendum by keeping us in the single market like we were repeatedly told?
keeping us in the single market
Because we’re not in it? No one can keep us in it now, more’s the pity.
Remember all those arguments about what “access to the single market” means? Whether Norway was technically a member, or just had “access”…? Well all the arguments will be coming back. Starting with the commentary on the 2025 EU/UK TCA negotiations probably. Improving our relationship with the EU is always going to fall well short of what we gave up… the slow painful journey probably started in earnest last week… when a UK PM managed a baby step without it becoming another chance for Johnson to unseat yet another of party leaders for his own gain.
With starmer’s red lines are we now looking to the tories for a more realistic chance of alignment?
Sunak has taken the first step to the future , Starmer is stuck in the past.
The hard Tory brexit is his year zero and nothing must taint the purity of the erg’s interpretation of the result.
We need the Tories to move (a long way) towards closer ties with the rest of Europe… because we’re not going to get the long term agreements we need with the EU without some consensus across UK politics about sticking to those agreements. In answer to your pretend question… no, sticking with the Tories in government at the next election isn’t our best hope of closer alignment, far from it… Labour are the ones proposing that… but we do need the Tories to move as well, and to abandon their championing of aggressive divergence.
Are you listening Reeves?
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1632878277407698944?t=NSjw4xUnOrGrUg_MKV3csQ&s=19
I don't think any of the parties are listening and only the Green Party are pledging to actually do anything to help but even then covered by taxing the rich to "balance the books"
The Green Party are a lot closer to a labour or even socialist party than the Labour Party yet all those people who want a proper Labour Party don't seem to vote for them or is that because not many people actually want that?
Starmer may be easier to swallow for the brainwashed voters who think a party like the Tory party will help them and improve society but the way he didn't answer such a simple question completely destroys any integrity he pretends to have.
I will agree that his stance on Brexit was shite, trying to keep people like you sweet instead of respecting the referendum result, but it is hardly relevant to today.
It wasn't a referendum, it was an ill-advised Tory opinion poll. Referenda that want to enforce a serious policy change have rules and requirements to allow the changes to be made in a manner that is agreed by the losers (losers consent) as well as the winners. I can recall none of that being in the legislation. There has also been no attempt to gain losers consent due to an overweaning arrogance by those that won by 2% on a possible 72% turnout.
Failure to acknowledge losers consent is the major problem and Starmer is set on continuing this, no vote from me for the illiberal fool. (See also ID cards which he is/was a proponent of).
"This whole notion that you run government like you run a household…is a complete myth”
I heard Mariana Mazzucato make that point and emphasis the fact that governments can print money on Newsnight last night, and I thought that there would be at least one person on STW who would agree!
The Green Party are a lot closer to a labour or even socialist party than the Labour Party yet all those people who want a proper Labour Party don’t seem to vote for them or is that because not many people actually want that?
I have no problem voting Green as an alternative to the Labour Party and did precisely that at the local elections last May. I clearly wasn't the only one as for the first time ever the Greens won seats on my local council.
Obviously I don't agree the Green Party's policy on the EU (although they have a long record of being highly critical of the EU) but I am not so obsessed on the issue that it affects the way I vote in local elections which are not remotely connected to the topic of EU membership.
For me the Green Party has two redeeming qualities which the three major political parties all lack. Firstly they are a social democratic party and secondly, for very obvious reasons, they don't attract self-serving careerists, what is there not to like?
Until a new credible trade union backed socialist party is formed I can't realistically see me supporting any other party.
It wasn’t a referendum, it was an ill-advised Tory opinion poll
It was completely backed by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, in fact the LibDems were the first to call for a straight in/out referendum. Awkward.