Forum menu
Fwiw I don't think Starmer is "just as bad as the tories". But he's far too close for my taste and it's obvious from the election result (let alone subsequent opinion polls) that he's disappointed a huge swathe of voters on the left of the party in his determination to chase those on the right.
I wonder if the “junior” doctors are following this entirely predictable “they’re all the same” narrative?
As for meeting and talking with world leaders that they, you, and we would never vote for… of course the government will be doing that… you’re going to lose your minds if Trump wins (let’s hope he doesn’t)… the UK government won’t be cold shouldering the USA any time soon.
you’re going to lose your minds if Trump wins (let’s hope he doesn’t)… the UK government won’t be cold shouldering the USA any time soon.
And what lessons do you expect Starmer to learn from Trump?
So far he's learned from Meloni that a good way to discourage people in boats is to hire thugs to rape and torture them before they enter your territorial waters.
I'm sure Trump has some great lessons as well.
Thanks for that link dissonance. The linked articles are worth a quick scan as well. As ever with that stuff, it’s hard to tell when “capitulation” genuinely helps the rise of the far right in these circumstances, or if it’s just the democratic effect of the rise of the far right… which is cause, which is effect? Like “Brexit” here: Labour promising no return to freedom of movement… is that a capitulation to those pushing the anti-immigrant stance like Farage and the worst of the Tories, or the result of past votes and “listening” to the public who have been voting for parties pushing anti-immigrant rhetoric, and how they voted in that damn referendum.
So far he’s learned from Meloni that a good way to discourage people in boats is to hire thugs to rape and torture them before they enter your territorial waters.
FFS Bruce.
FFS Bruce. I’ll come back when there’s some actual discussion here.
Yeah, I can see why you'd want to stay away when we're discussing this. This is what Starmer has been learning from Meloni.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/01/italy-reups-funding-force-migrants-back-libya
I’m aware of the hideousness of her party, and what Italy has been doing. If you’re going to try and taint a UK government with the actions of every foreign state that they talk to and try to work with, then you’ve got your work cut out. The list will be long. Dealing with international crime networks will require cooperation… with governments we don’t elect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5yy13ng33o
Junior doctors in England have accepted the government’s offer of a 22% pay rise over two years, ending their long-running dispute.
Dealing with international crime networks will require cooperation… with governments we don’t elect.
Perhaps they should have been more explicit when they said how they were going to tackle irregular migration upstream.
The thing is, employing thugs to capture asylum seekers before they get to international waters is also 'tackling the problem upstream.' Did Starmer or anyone else explicitly say this £4million was not just going to go towards hiring more of these scumbags?
Starmer said learning from the Italians on Monday marked “a return to British pragmatism”, and said the “remarkable progress” Meloni had made in reducing the number of illegal migrants was down to her “upstream work that tackles the issue at its source”.
The stated reasons given by the Labour Party and the Italian far-right for stopping asylum seekers in small boats are very different.
So I cannot see how the solutions could possibly be similar.
The Labour Party claims that it wants to stop small boats arrivals because the sea crossing is extremely dangerous and innocent lives, often children's, are regularly lost. Plus callous thugs are exploiting desperate refugees. The Labour Party claims to want asylum seekers to follow safe and legal routes.
In contrast the racist Italian far-right don't want them to arrive full-stop.They consider them to be lesser humans because they are of a different race and from non-Christian cultures. They don't care if desperate people, including children, drown at sea (think of Nigel Farage moaning that the RNLI is saving refugees from drowning)
And far from caring about callous thugs exploiting desperate refugees Italian fascists are giving them huge amounts of money so that they can rape, torture, and generally abuse them.
It is quite astonishing that considering past threads on stw dealing with Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage, 30p Lee, Priti Patel, etc, that the case has to be made that the far-right can never provide the answers to asylum seeker issues.
Kelvin - no one believes for a moment that you would not be strongly condemning Rishi Sunak if he was still PM and he was asking the Italian far-right for advice on how to deal with asylum seekers arriving on small boats.
I understand now why you have been so relaxed with Starmer's ever changing moral positions, you seem to personally follow the same moral acrobatics with remarkable ease.
I am not sure that financial support for their wardrobes is important though, just think how badly dressed Rishi Sunak looks despite being the wealthiest MP in Parliament. I frankly don’t understand how anyone could have voted for him…. shocking!
Yeah cat's died and everything but I bet his suits weren't from Primark.
Angela Eagle keeps popping up to defend various recent Labour shenanigans. My god she's bad. She's always been terrible and should be nowhere near a microphone connected to a recording device.
Interesting article by Gordon Brown today about the so-called moderates and their flirtation with the hard right.
I'm finding the timing of that article fascinating.
I'm not sure this galavanting abroad is actually that productive for a country that could solve many of its problems starting on its doorstep.
I mean - our Rach, goes playing trans-atlantic trickle-down with Jamie Dimon without noticing she's pretty much in charge of one of the most powerful central banks on earth.
I understand now why you have been so relaxed with Starmer’s ever changing moral positions, you seem to personally follow the same moral acrobatics with remarkable ease.
Making it personal again? Rightio.
I’m not sure this galavanting abroad is actually that productive for a country that could solve many of its problems starting on its doorstep
How’s the Lexit fantasy working out? We need to work with other countries, be it trade, the green energy transition, defence, people smuggling, vaccines…
Twitter doesn’t embed on this forum so….
From Dr Dan Goyal
Starmer accepting clothes from a donor may not seem like much, but it’s a symptom of a much more concerning disease….a disease that will affect whether or not our NHS will get back to delivering world-class care. It’s time to reform parliamentary rules!
My rant:
https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1835652944252793069?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
From Mark Seddon
While working for the National Union of Tailors & Garment Workers, Jeremy Corbyn was offered a suit for free but turned it down at it could be a ‘conflict of interest’. One, here, has real class (& graced the cover of GQ).
https://twitter.com/markseddon1962/status/1835626889274098149?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
No conflict in interest taking millions from the unions though.....
It's a total non story being touted by the Torys and the Left, strange bed fellows indeed but it's all they have.
Making it personal again? Rightio.
I find your support for the UK government seeking advice from far-right racists on how best to deal with asylum seekers arriving on small boats quite astonishing. You don't think that I should?
You think you should post on here that it is fine to talk about asylum issues to far-right fascists without anyone daring to criticise you?
After all your relentless attacks on the likes of Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, and 30p Lee, you suddenly decide that far-right racists might have something worthwhile to say about asylum seekers after all?
If anyone had dared to suggest such a thing pre-July 4th on stw you would have been in the front of the queue to criticise them and accuse them of being trolls, which appears to be one of your preferred insults.
I abhor racism and fascism, I am not going to water down my opposition to it simply because we have an alleged Labour government.
Such drama. We elect our government. Other nations choose theirs. We work with them. The UK needs to work with other countries on many key issues, we are not a bubble. Those smuggling people across continents work across borders, and our government should seek to do the same. And that absolutely requires working with people all around the med, including Italy, Syria & Turkey, despite who is in government there.
Such drama. We elect our government. Other nations choose theirs.
Its always good when you choose to enlighten us with your wisdom. Although admittedly I am struggling with you going on to talk about Turkey which at best can be described as a flawed democracy now and Syria which doesnt even bother pretending.
Neither are a democracy IMHO. Both human rights abusers. Both will need to be worked with to stop the smuggling and people dying at sea. Pretending this is a problem we can solve by tough talk on kids murals, pulling out of the ECHR, and policing our own border is for the past. So is acting as if it’s France’s problem. Investigations and measures have to be across borders, across the channel, across the continent, and across the med.
And that absolutely requires working with people all around the med, including Italy, Syria & Turkey, despite who is in government there.
Who is claiming that we shouldn't?
Working with people all around the med. doesn't somehow justify asking for advice from far-right racists on how to best to deal with asylum seekers arriving on small boats. And not least far-right racists who are happy to see them drown, or raped, or tortured, etc
Would you be so dismissive and talking about "such drama" if news broke that Rishi Sunak was asking for advice from Italian fascists on how to deal with small boat arrivals?
The answer of course is no.
And not least far-right racists who are happy to see them drown, or raped, or tortured, etc
As I said earlier, if working with a country means you inherit all the ills of their government by association… then the list of second hand misdemeanours is going to be long for this PM leading a (I hope) internationalist Labour government. Especially if Trump wins (I hope not).
As I said earlier, if working with a country means you inherit all the ills of their government by association…
This would be a reasonable argument if talking about about their stamp design. However the point in discussion isnt "all the ills" but specifically their immigration policies.
What policies do you think we should be picking up from them? Maybe cracking down on the RNLI and restricting their rescue operations? Or avoiding leaving the ECHR by outsourcing the human rights abuse to other countries (with the obvious flaw in this case of the main other country also being bound by the ECHR).
As I said earlier, if working with a country means you inherit all the ills of their government by association…
Yeah but that is not what is being discussed here. We are not talking about "working" with other countries. We are talking about seeking advice from far-right racists on how to deal with refugees arriving in small boats.
Btw I don't know why the focus on "working with people all around the Mediterranean". The UK does not have any coastline along the Mediterranean, and the colonial days are over now.
What the UK government should be doing, if it wants to stick its oar in, is condemning the Italian government, not praising their alleged achievements.
Condemning them for this:
In its obsession to keep migrants and asylum seekers away from its shores, Italy is paying for tens of thousands of people to be intercepted and returned to Libya, where they face abuses that the UN describes as possible crimes against humanity.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/01/italy-reups-funding-force-migrants-back-libya
Migration is driven by pull and push. In my case the push of a shitty UK teaching post and the pull of better pay and conditions, proper mountains, better climate, affordable housing, sporting fascilities, a love of the culture and language. Not every teacher left the UK in the 80s/90s though, they weren't all in shitty jobs or as keen on French culture.
The current migrations are driven by extreme push combined with media driven pull. Most people don't want to leave where they were born, have family and friends and enough to live on, they have to be pushed or pulled out. The pushes are numerous, recent French TV reports have questioned immigrants why they had taken huge risks and suffered multiple miseries to get to Europe. Some of the answeres were interesting:
A Senegal fisherman left because there were no fish left. He explained that the big Chinese boats were taking most of the fish and the traditional fishing methods weren't providing enough to live on.
The Syrians had fled a war zone, we know who started that. There's a film out about a village that makes accomodation available to refugees and gets Syrians rather than the expected Ukranians - very amusing in its treatment of prejudice.
Drought, the Sahel is suffering from gas central heating and ICE cars like the rest of the planet. Whilst eastern Europe floods the Sahel dries up and people fight over what's left.
We have created the pushes but also added some pull:
Internet and the smart phone mainly. People around the world now know exactly what is happening everywhere else in the world. They can see it on their phones and communicate with people anywhere and everywhere. They have an objective and the tool to do it - navigate, communicate, pay, organise... the phone.
Then having created the pushes and pulls we get upset (not very in my case) when people get very determined to get to green grass - because it is, and they know it is. And trying to stop them is futile while we're still pulling them and pushing them.
Damn right argee, glad to see you’ve seen the light 😉
No conflict in interest taking millions from the unions though…..
I agree.
Starmer’s £100,000 in tickets and gifts more than any other recent party leader
glasses valued at £2,485
Blimey, I bought a pair of prescription glasses from Asda for £45
I love the way Angela Eagle doesn't even bother to attempt to defend Starmer :
Angela Eagle, a minister, struggled to defend the prime minister’s decision to accept so many freebies when pressed on Times Radio on Tuesday. Asked why he shouldn’t buy his own glasses, given his salary, Eagle said: “I’m afraid I’m not responsible for decisions the prime minister makes.”
She added: “The prime minister has had his say on that … next time you interview him, you could ask him yourself. I don’t have an opinion.”
I do enjoy seeing that the left still aren't bitter about Starmer being PM ;o)
You do realise that the article and the quotes are from the Guardian which fully supported Starmer in his bid to become PM, don't you agree?
Do you think the Guardian might be bitter??
I do enjoy seeing that the left still aren’t bitter about Starmer being PM ;o)
Who is this ‘left’ that will be bitter, left of what?
You do realise that the article and the quotes are from the Guardian which fully supported Starmer in his bid to become PM, don’t you agree?
Do you think the Guardian might be bitter??
That's what i was insinuating, their articles are posted more on here now than Owen Jones or Richard Murphy, they're like a stuck record these days.
I do enjoy seeing that the left still aren’t bitter about Starmer being PM ;o)
Very disappointed and annoyed rather than bitter. Yes we have a Labour Party in power but we don't have a Labour government. Guessing you are happy with everything he is doing (including his apparent lack of integrity) but then you would also have been happy with a Lib Dem government I would imagine.
Very disappointed and annoyed rather than bitter. Yes we have a Labour Party in power but we don’t have a Labour government. Guessing you are happy with everything he is doing (including his apparent lack of integrity) but then you would also have been happy with a Lib Dem government I would imagine.
You'll have to update me on this lack of integrity bit again?
You’ll have to update me on this lack of integrity bit again?
Really? The £100,000 just above my post. Again, guess you are happy with that being that your bar for Labour is so low it is underground.
That’s what i was insinuating, their articles are posted more on here now than Owen Jones or Richard Murphy, they’re like a stuck record these days
They're a stuck record because your man is making such a hash of things.
As a left leaning person, I hoped Starmer would address the obvious problems we have. There is no shortage of money available to invest in the public services and infrastructure. The initial moves (pensioners WFA) and other areas rumored to be in upcoming budget (free public transport, reduction in pension tax allowance) all look targeted at ordinary folk and have negative impact on travel and encouragement to save.
You’ll have to update me on this lack of integrity bit again?
Well you could just simply choose to ignore everything and put some Corbyn memes up?
I don't know how anyone could look at these last few weeks and see anything other than a random shambles of poor quality decisions with little logic to them, hastily tied together with a load of freebies.
Just about every progressive mainstream economist is spitting their soup out - Wren-Lewis, Meadway, Andy Haldane and Mariana Mazzucato.
It's a terrible start and even for me as a Starmer sceptic - beyond my expectations. Though I did say they might be worse than the economy than the Tories.
You get the government Centrists deserve.
Budget should be laugh too.
As a left leaning person, I hoped Starmer would address the obvious problems we have. There is no shortage of money available to invest in the public services and infrastructure
Absolutely.
But the markets the markets. FFS.
Self-harming governments is now the norm. Not wanting to demonstrate dramatic power for improving people's lives.
Do you think the Guardian might be bitter??
That’s what i was insinuating, their articles are posted more on here now
I'm sorry let me get this right......... you are complaining that there too many articles from the Guardian being posted on this thread?
Which would be your newspaper of choice?
they’re like a stuck record these days.
How bizarre. Starmer has been PM for a couple of months, the Guardian publishes a rather embarrassing article about him which you would rather that they hadn't, and suddenly they become "like a stuck record these days".
Mleh. It's Noise.
PM's get invited to stuff, they get given gifts. There's always going to be this stuff floating about, even more so when its a Labour PM, and they've just decided to stop winter fuel payments. It looks bad, people grumble, the news cycle moves on. With Sunak it was helicopters, Starmer has football match tickets. I dunno, perhaps its a uniquely British moan, we want our PM to stride the world, and take his place amongst the supra-national bodies, and make news headlines but when it's revealed they need a airplane to do it, or when it's easier to chart a helicopter to move them about rather than a car, or they get given the use of a posh house, or clothes even; everyone gets purse lipped and parsimonious and grumbles about it, it's weirdly schizophrenic.
The markets usually respond well to investment if they can get a slice of it. (Blair/Brown)
Also the markets reacted badly to Truss as there was no ROI for them
Really? The £100,000 just above my post. Again, guess you are happy with that being that your bar for Labour is so low it is underground.
So the opposition leader, during an election campaign accepts invites to football games, sports events, etc to meet and greet the public and get seen, or accepts them from the labour funds campaign manager (Lord Alli), would it have been better to decline and then just accept cash funding, then spend that on the same stuff?
My bar for all politicians is pretty much the same, it just seems in this thread Stramer, Reeves, etc are like the devil incarnate for some, berating a government for being complete failures before they've actually implemented any policies, or the politicians being corrupt because they do what politicians have done since politics began.
When the Starmer thread was chugging along, I mentioned then that the football match hospitality while leader of the opposition would come back to bite him, and that he should find some way of paying that also kept him safe. The Private Eye team were dead right on this... the only clear place to draw the line is no freebies, no excuses. If you're not officially there as the PM (or minister for sports or whatever), pay your way. Unfair to opposition leaders perhaps... but there's no other way to avoid accusations of back scratching in future if you become PM.
What the UK government should be doing, if it wants to stick its oar in, is condemning the Italian government, not praising their alleged achievements.
I don't disagree with that really. But I do think the PM should be free to speak to any govt about anything. It should whenever possible stick to some sort of integrity, even if its to say; "we've looked at what the Italians are doing, and much of it is nothing we can do here" - diplomatic niceties observed to a nation you've just signed trade deals worth £500M notwithstanding. Personally I'm surprised western govts are making more of the fact that the Wagner Group is the driving force behind much of the irregular migration from sub-Sharan Africa.
Starmer can't do anything about migrants crossing in small boats that isn't going to piss off some section of the public. Process them off-shore and there'll be complaining, process them in the UK - same, only with rioting thrown in for a fun-time extra. I reckon that the political decision is going to be which group of folks do you try to appease/ not piss off, and with nearly 5 million votes and stealing some traditional labour support, the 'pragmatic' one is staring you in the face. I don't think the folks that are concerned about immigration in small boats are going to be overly-troubled by what happens to them once they get turned away from these shores.
all look targeted at ordinary folk and have negative impact on travel and encouragement to save
all look targeted at older folk and have negative impact on travel and encouragement to save for those with money
would it have been better to decline and then just accept cash funding, then spend that on the same stuff?
Errmmmm or as a radical thought not take the money? As is the case for civil servants and many in the private sector.
My bar for all politicians is pretty much the same
Really? So you extended the same courtesy to Johnson and thought it was fine for him to be accept various gifts?
Errmmmm or as a radical thought not take the money? As is the case for civil servants and many in the private sector.
You do know that during campaigns almost every MP gets donations, both private and party, some will fund travel and accommodation to specific events to assist campaigning, office payments for staffing at campaigns, etc, etc, etc.
The civil service, which i am a member off, is very different, we are not allowed to campaign or show any political influence, i've had a couple of mates quit due to joining and campaigning for parties, we don't accept gifts up to a certain limit either, because we aren't campaigning for jobs, we interview for them.
Really? So you extended the same courtesy to Johnson and thought it was fine for him to be accept various gifts?
Surely the difference here is intent. Take the wallpaper fiasco as just as an example, Johnson had no intention of either paying for it himself or fessing up to it once a donor had been located and persuaded to pay for it on his behalf, despite both Cummings and the Civil Service explaining to him at the time that the path he was going down was possibly illegal, and very definitely against the very clearly set out rules. He still thought that he could 'get away with it' whereas Starmer hasn't done anything like that at all.
Optics.
It just looks shite to be taking nice presents when you're loaded and everyone else is being told to suffer.
It really is that simple and that's how the electorate will see it. It would better given the position he is in for Starmer not to take this level of gift.
Anything else is just noise.
Surely the difference here is intent.
I would say the similarity is intent. What is the intent of those people providing the money? Just to be jolly good fellows helping out democracy or for something in return. When the consultancy firms second staff to a shadow/soon to be minister is that just out of their deep love of the UK? Oddly not reflected come tax time.
The wallpaper was impressive in that he had difficulty getting it passed even the lax laws.
The main stuff, clothes, glasses, etc is from his own funds manager in the campaign, a labour peer of over 25 years, all Lord Alli wanted was Starmer to win the election, and he funnelled his own money in to assist where possible.
The football stuff, that's just Starmer wanting to be the man of the people and at footy games to show he's around, i believe it was all EPL teams who offered tickets separately, and they offered comps to many other MPs, both sides of the house.
It just looks shite to be taking nice presents when you’re loaded and everyone else is being told to suffer.
There's always a stick to beat any PM, it comes with the job, the other side of that coin is that PM is the highest position that outside an accident of birth a civilian can get to in this country, if it's not worth a couple of tickets to watch some footy then we've reached a level of sanctimony that's probably a reflection on us as a whole.
Edit: and we know about it because he's declared it, not becasue we've found out that he's lied to his own standards commissioner, been hauled over the coals, and fined nearly £20 grand.
There’s always a stick to beat any PM, it comes with the job
LOL! I would have loved to have seen stuff like that posted on stw when Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were PMs!
Although perhaps that claim wasn't true then?
Optics
Yep, he had some of them too
Mleh, the £100,000 of stuff doesn't even come close to the £600,000 raised to give to Corbyn to fight his legal battles, comparing the woes of having bad press about some footy tickets vs the whoppers that Johnson carried on with is desperate stuff even for some one as partisan as you are.
All depends where your bar is for integrity. I have a high level of integrity (maybe why I struggle with most MPs) and therefore nobody would be paying for my £2000 glasses as buying glasses is something I would buy myself along with my clothes.
On top of that it also clearly looks very bad and we know that this is not connected to taking money away from people but that is not the conclusion a lot of people will be drawing.
I am still surprised how much Starmer supporters are willing to excuse him. I suppose I will give it another year and see if you are still blindly backing whatever he does (hopefully his party will have woken up and got rid of him by then though)
That’s what i was insinuating, their articles are posted more on here now than Owen Jones or Richard Murphy, they’re like a stuck record these days.
Sucks being right.........right?
All depends where your bar is for integrity. I have a high level of integrity (maybe why I struggle with most MPs) and therefore nobody would be paying for my £2000 glasses as buying glasses is something I would buy myself along with my clothes.
On top of that it also clearly looks very bad and we know that this is not connected to taking money away from people but that is not the conclusion a lot of people will be drawing.I am still surprised how much Starmer supporters are willing to excuse him. I suppose I will give it another year and see if you are still blindly backing whatever he does (hopefully his party will have woken up and got rid of him by then though)
At a guess i'd say that Waheed Alli, as part of Starmers campaign team has set up Starmer with a stylist ahead of the campaign, that is Lord Alli, who has been a party member, and Labour Lord in the House of Lords, who has backed the party for decades.
As for Starmer supporters, i tend to have to defend him (and Reeves et al) on here due to the complete negativity of some posters, its completely out of context as well most of the time, this wasn't just a case of Starmer accepting gifts, it's been worded to aim at his integrity and honesty, if it was just about him being daft for accepting some footy tickets or the likes, fair game, but to question his integrity over it, that's not so good.
Mleh, the £100,000 of stuff doesn’t even come close to the £600,000 raised to give to Corbyn to fight his legal battles
Uh huh and yet if we have a quick look at that crowdfunder its pretty obvious its not quite the same thing. Rather more donations with the top one scraping in just a bit higher than whoever brought Starmer those Taylor tickets.
but to question his integrity over it, that’s not so good.
And yet that is why donations to PEPs often is heavily restricted by companies. Since by definition it raises a quid pro quo question mark.
a quick look at that crowdfunder its pretty obvious its not quite the same thing.
Not the same as Lord Alli getting a pass for Number 10?
Uh huh and yet if we have a quick look at that crowdfunder its pretty obvious its not quite the same thing.
Sure, it's not been raised in the same way, but Corbyn accepted it as a gift, and declared it. So we've established that it's OK for politicians to accept money from supporters. As long as it's declared, it's just sanctimony to say otherwise. Otherwise if you're going to say it's wrong for a particular politicians to accept gifts then that includes legal fees as well. otherwise you're pleading special circumstances.
What some people are calling gifts I call corruption.
Otherwise if you’re going to say it’s wrong for a particular politicians to accept gifts then that includes legal fees as well. otherwise you’re pleading special circumstances.
So you are saying its the same giving 100k as it is giving a tenner?
I would limit the amount that can be donated to say 1k. Allows individuals to provide support but not at a level it is likely to influence someone significantly and yes that would impact the union donations.
Sure, it’s not been raised in the same way, but Corbyn accepted it as a gift,
What was the largest single donation?
Do you reckon it was enough to gain the contributor preferential treatment in some way in parliament?
If not then it's not really the same thing, is it?
Do you reckon it was enough to gain the contributor preferential treatment in some way in parliament?
It's the declaration that nullifies the possibility of compromising activity, not the acceptance or the gift itself. The whole point of the register is so it provides a defence against that very thing. While there's no one person going to benefit from giving money to Corbyn's legal fee campaign, if he'd not told parliament that he'd received it, then there would be legitimate questions to ask over his honesty, same with Footy tickets. Johnson got justified opprobrium heaped upon him for doing exactly the opposite on numerous occasions.
No one has given anyone a £100K.
Leaving aside the cases where they have, generally hidden as directorships and presenter jobs, how about answering the question.
Do you really think that someone donating 1k would have the same influence as someone donating 100k?
That it is "pleading special circumstances." to suggest that its different?
I would limit the amount that can be donated to say 1k. Allows individuals to provide support but not at a level it is likely to influence someone significantly and yes that would impact the union donations.
I would stop donations full stop and remove any element of doubt around what the donator is hoping to achieve.
Do you really think that someone donating 1k would have the same influence as someone donating 100k?
It depends entirely on whether the person whose received the gift exposes it to the 'disinfectant of sunlight' doesn't it? If you try to keep it a secret, then the £1000 you've given an MP is just as effective as a tool for corruption as the £100,000 that a wealthier person might give to another MP. The number ultimately is kinda immaterial. it's the hiding of it that's the issue. That's why IPSA has a publicly searchable database to protect MPs as well as us
Starmer's woes are nothing to do with any whiff of corruption. As apparently easily wrong footed as he's turned out to be, I don't think anyone thinks for a second that Starmer's in it to line his own pockets, as dull as it may sound, in that respect he is different to Johnson. It's just the next in a seemingly endless parade of things he gets initially wrong, and has to correct himself to do the right thing. It's becoming enough of a habit that it's getting him into trouble. He appears to be as ill-equipped politically as Sunak was before him.
I am still surprised how much Starmer supporters are willing to excuse him
I'm not surprised at all. This thread shows quite clearly that tribalism trumps everything else.
More anti-Labour government stuff from the Guardian :
Labour in apparent disarray over Thames cleanup plan
It turns out that hard-right Croydon Labour MP and now Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has approved of a scheme which the Guardian claims was rejected by the Tories because of environmental concerns :
A similar scheme from Thames Water was rejected by the Environment Agency in 2019 because of the anticipated unacceptable impact on the environment of releasing millions of litres of treated effluent into the river.
Who would have thought it?
Having had a quick read, i'm trying to see the big issue here, it's releasing treated sewage, which, well, gets released anyway, it's why we treat it, and this policy is aimed at droughts, so when there is one, they are allowed to take additional water from that area to use for domestic water supplies and replace it with treated sewage, i'm struggling to work out the daily mail, sorry, guardian angle here?
Not surprising, you seem to have an excuse for everything Starmer does. And calling the Guardian the Daily Mail because they are exposing things about Starmer/Labour is not really helping.
Try to forget about which party or who is doing it and just look at the topic from a view of any government or any MP or any PM. I will question what Labour are doing just as much as I questioned what the tories were doing even though I am a Labour sort of person.