Forum menu
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.
Relevant to Starmer's Italy trip. It's still not clear that the £4million given by the UK government isn't going to support this.
Sorry, it's a Guardian link. I know some people get triggered by links to this paper now.
They only get triggered when it's not fawning.
I mean, it's not just that Labour are going from one bad sense of political judgment to another but they're barely putting anything of positive consequence out there too.
This was meant to be a honeymoon.
They blew that one.
I’m not surprised at all. This thread shows quite clearly that tribalism trumps everything else.
Yes, if you're of the Labour left its absolutely fine to be as totally partisan as you like, it's entirely NOT ok to be totally partisan otherwise. It's politics, or course it's tribal. duh.
Yes, if you’re of the Labour left its absolutely fine to be as totally partisan as you like, it’s entirely NOT ok to be totally partisan otherwise. It’s politics, or course it’s tribal. duh.
No idea what you're on about. I voted for Starmer in the leadership election, so to find that he has his snout in the trough, and is cosying up to the hard right, is beyond disappointing. I expected better.
I'm not at all interested in the tiresome whataboutery you are using as a justification: I suspect you are dissembling because you also believe it's wrong.
It’s politics, or course it’s tribal. duh.
If you treat politics like football where the most important thing is your team wins then yes, it's tribal.
Don't assume everyone thinks the same way though. Many people don't care what party wins and are only interested in seeing society move in a better direction.
Many people don’t care what party wins and are only interested in seeing society move in a better direction.
On that, I'm entirely sympathetic to the argument that it will take Labour many years to fix the mess the Tories left. But we are talking here about personal conduct and Starmer could fix that right now, which ought to be an easy win.
Many people don’t care what party wins and are only interested in seeing society move in a better direction.
I think they do. They're is a lot of sticky Tories - it's just multiple parties are running with the same way of organising society.
But, the benchmark for material conditions is so distorted people have lapped up the previous low interest rates and HPI as success. (When it's actually a failure of housing stock that drove this.)
Most have gotten it into their head that things can't be fixed because of lack of money or something - and so give the government a pass.
Life is unlikely to get a whole lot better under Labour for many people simply because they've chosen the same path as the Tories.
But Labour don't get the easy ride of course because they simply don't attempt to fix the problems that the Tories created.
Our benchmark for what society could be is too low and shaped by failure - it's easy for governments to constantly look like they're hands are tied - hence the existence of the OBR and the BoE appearing independent.
Total charade - government has the ultimate power on what it can do but I'm seeing lack of enthusiasm for actually putting stuff right which would mean changing the neoliberal narrative.
Labour are so far from that.
f you treat politics like football where the most important thing is your team wins then yes, it’s tribal.
That's one way of defining tribal, it's not the only way.
only interested in seeing society move in a better direction.
Same for Truss, Kwarteng, Badenoch Farage etc etc. do you not think those folks don't believe what they're doing is a "better direction" for this country?
Same for Truss, Kwarteng, Badenoch Farage etc etc. do you not think those folks don’t believe what they’re doing is a “better direction” for this country?
1. I don't believe any of those people give a shit about the country.
2. What are we talking about here? You started out by saying the 'Labour Left' is partisan. Who is the Labour Left?
At first I assumed you meant those of us who sort of by default supported Labour because they were the only option and are now complaining that they are doing shitty things like giving £4million to a government who are paying people to rape and torture refugees (with no guarantees that this £4million isn't going to paying more of these scumbags). But now it seems you were talking about politicians?
If we're talking about politicians then yes, I would suspect they would be somewhat tribal and partisan. Although then you are saying there is a party within the Labour party made up of particularly tribal partisan lefites? Who is a member of this party within a party?
Can we please define once and for all define who people are actually talking about when they make generalisations about 'The Left', 'The Labour Left', 'Those Lefties', etc because it's really confusing.
Having had a quick read, i’m trying to see the big issue here
I think that might be the problem. Try reading the Guardian article more slowly and you will notice that they explain in detail what the "big issue" is.
I'm not doing politics on here any more, waste of time and positions too entrenched.
But I'll still happily correct factual inaccuracies. Are they deliberate or not, make you own minds up.
Labour in apparent disarray over Thames cleanup plan
Apparent being a key word. As I'll explain later, it's two different issues.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/18/labour-in-apparent-disarray-over-thames-cleanup-planIt turns out that hard-right Croydon Labour MP and now Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has approved of a scheme
No he hasn't. He has approved that it moves to the next stage of review, which is the correct thing to do from a process PoV
"But Reed just last week approved the next stage in the development of a controversial scheme.....The Teddington scheme will have to go through development consent where environmental concerns will be considered before it is fully approved"
which the Guardian claims was rejected by the Tories because of environmental concerns :
No, they don't.
"A similar scheme from Thames Water was rejected by the Environment Agency in 2019"
The EA is NOT Government, it's a non-Dept Public body, and can decide on these things independent of their arms length Dept control. Google NDPB and learn about it. OK, in the end a Minister could apply pressure or even overrule but that is not in general how these things work, and would be subject to significant checks and controls.
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.
Correct. Specifically; temperature and salinity and the impact that would have on the biodiversity. This *might* be environmentally harmful, the release of treated waste water (after separation, flocculation and sedimentation/filtration) is not specifically the issue - that's the purpose of treating wastewater - what else do we do, keep it in a tank for ever? But releasing warm water into a tidal / specific salinity watercourse may be an issue. That's what the EA rejected last time, and they may do again, or maybe the scheme has addressed that hence resubmitting. Processes will follow and decisions will be made on facts.
What is NOT a problem and is being conflated by the Guardian report and the subsequent summarising / commentary on the report, is the apparent dichotomy of Khan looking at it as a CLEAN bathing area. The proposal, AIUI is nothing like the release of raw sewage that dirties swimming areas, it'll make the water a bit warmer and less salty and has therefore no impact on whether that stretch of the Thames is safe for swimming.
Hope that clarifies.
I think that might be the problem. Try reading the Guardian article more slowly and you will notice that they explain in detail what the “big issue” is.
Indeed they do. Which is not what the headline insinuates, or which you seem to think it is.
'No, it’s got to be “their” better direction.' Nonsense. I voted Labour in the hope they'd do something about landlords/renters, minimum wage, zero hours, council house building, education and the NHS etc etc none of which impacts on me. Most people aren't neoliberal possessive individualists.
No, it’s got to be “their” better direction.
True. Many people consider a better direction to be one that ensures the price of their home continues to rise, their pension pots increasing in value at a higher rate than inflation, and their stock portfolio keeps going up.
Other people want to see asylum seekers fired into the sun because, 'we should look after our own first.'
So yes, when I say better direction I mean in a way that benefits those who currently have very little (entirely selfishly as I believe I'm better off when everyone around me is healthy and happy) and doesn't involve performative cruelty in the name of 'solving' immigration.
The EA is NOT Government, it’s a non-Dept Public body, and can decide on these things independent of their arms length Dept control.
As long as it is in line with government policies. It is like claiming that the Bank of England is "independent" of the government, it isn't, the tasks that it must achieve are set by the government.
It's also a bit like saying that refuse collection has nothing to do with a local authority because it is carried out by a private company.
Actually, it's more like the judiciary. They apply the laws, in this case about the Environment. Of course, if the Gov want to change the law, after appropriate review and legislation they can. That's not the same as just doing what Gov say.
But I'm not interested in arguing it, those are the actual facts up there.
But I’m not interested in arguing it, those are the actual facts up there.
The Guardian is always happy to publish letters critical of their articles/headlines.
Btw I'm loving this :
I’m not doing politics on here any more, waste of time and positions too entrenched.
LOL! .....too entrenched ! At last, something that we can agree on !!
The EA is NOT Government, it’s a non-Dept Public body, and can decide on these things independent of their arms length Dept control.
Come on Jon, that's not how it works and you know it. I have direct experience of this and the bottom line is that we are not at liberty to make any significant decisions without running it by central government.
Stating facts has nothing to do with my political position whether entrenched or not.
The Guardian is always happy to publish letters critical of their articles/headlines.
I'm more interested in what you think, having had the 'factual inaccuracies' pointed out? Your post wasn't even consistent with the article, you bent the content even further away from the facts than they did. Why? Didn't you read it properly, or some other reason?
Come on Jon, that’s not how it works and you know it. I have direct experience of this and the bottom line is that we are not at liberty to make any significant decisions without running it by central government.
They seemed perfectly able to prevent it happening when proposed in 2019?
They seemed perfectly able to prevent it happening when proposed in 2019?
And I'm saying that the chances of them doing that without government being aware are very low.
The Guardian is always happy to publish letters critical of their articles/headlines.
I’m more interested in what you think, having had the ‘factual inaccuracies’ pointed out?
Really? You are more interested in my opinions than misleading Guardian headlines?
I feel truly touched but I feel you might be exaggerating the importance of my opinions 🙂
Some interesting stuff in the news last couple of days about Starmer's wardrobe donations, his wife going to fashion week and Sue Gray's salary. 3 months in and they're already fighting like rats in a sack and briefing against each other. So much for a 'change' and a govt of service. They really are all the same aren't they?
This quote from Chris Mason pretty much sums it up..
"This story, at its crux, is not about [Gray’s] salary per se.
It is about the levels of upset and anger - fair or otherwise - about her and her role at the top of government.
That is what motivated the person who tipped me off - at considerable professional risk - to tell me what I am now telling you.
And I know from other conversations I have had - and members of our BBC team have had - that this person is far from alone.
And that tells you something about the fractious relationships among some at the top of government, less than three months after Labour won the election."
This story, at its crux, is not about [Gray’s] salary per se.
Do we know that it's Labour people doing the briefing? There must be some civil servants upset about her new position (and renumeration).
Anyway, that sounds a lot like the press/media wanting to be/make the story, not report the story, to me. Same as it ever was.
And I’m saying that the chances of them doing that without government being aware are very low.
Awareness is not the issue. Of course NDPBs and arms length's bodies talk to their Depts, indeed part of the governance is to have regular direct contact with them. And for sure in a case like TW, with its impending bankruptcy and need to improve / potential for being taken into public ownership there is a political element to this and discussions probably along the lines of 'what were the issues last time and what could we change or improve to make you be able to approve it'
'Running it by' insinuates that Gov has to approve. I disagree, in this case EA is at liberty to make their own decision and if a Minister then wants to intervene and over rule they can do via their proper authority, which would be a matter of record and if necessary subject to further challenge by eg: OEP.
Really? You are more interested in my opinions than misleading Guardian headlines?
Those are not opinions, you have taken a 'misleading' Guardian article and then further misrepresented what it said and now don't seem interested in answering why?
Running it by’ insinuates that Gov has to approve. I disagree, in this case EA is at liberty to make their own decision and if a Minister then wants to intervene and over rule they can do via their proper authority, which would be a matter of record and if necessary subject to further challenge by eg: OEP.
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. In practice, Gov will make its position clear informally via the under secretary or senior civil servants, and the NDGB can decide whether it wishes to make decisions in accordance with that position. The ramifications should hardly need spelling out. I speak as someone who runs a service which is 100% funded by central government ...
So no rate cut and £100bn bond sale? Not sure if I understand this? The lack of a rate cut shows a lack of confidence and the bond sale indicates a bit of panic?
It turns out that "relaxation" is part of the job of being prime minister, who knew that? That will explain why Boris Johnson worked so hard at doing ****-all.
Anyone else get paid by their employer to relax?
Keir Starmer’s attendance at Arsenal football matches and Taylor Swift concerts is “part of the job”, the business secretary has said.
The minister said he had “no problem” with politicians accepting gifts that can be of “a more personal nature” and noted hard-working politicians were entitled to “a bit of relaxation”.
Reynolds told Times Radio that accepting hospitality “is not a perk of the job, it’s part of the job”.
So it is not even a perk. I wonder how that would hold up in an unfair dismissal case......"I went to the football match during work hours because I wanted a bit of "Me Time"
More here in the naughty Guardian :
So no rate cut and £100bn bond sale? Not sure if I understand this? The lack of a rate cut shows a lack of confidence and the bond sale indicates a bit of panic?
Selling these bonds at the rate they're doing will reduce fiscal headroom for the chancellor - as the 'losses' will be greater than letting them expire over the full term. (The Fed is keeping theirs to maturity for this reason as I understand it.)
To be honest I'm a bit unclear what's going off and why.
It's looking likely Reeves might refine what is net 'debt' and this might feed into that somewhere.
Doesn't look like any fiscal adjustment I have seen before (note I am not an economist just interested)
Unless Labour are planning to run a shit two years of adjustment then start in the other direction three years before the next election. Or alternatively they haven't a clue and this is Truss 2.0.