Yes. That was my point. The cliche that Labour politicians are in politics because they need the money, and that Conservatives are just after prestige, doesn’t hold, does it.

Your point wasn’t missed, it just isn’t very good. Most politicians are in the game for personal gain (be that power, fame, money or whatever), even if they may once have been driven by ideological principals. Starmer has done very well out of politics so far; being the leader of a collapsing failure of a party is pretty inconsequential in terms of his career. He’s still got a lot of eggs in his basket. And he’s got a house worth a fair few quid, if he ever needs to ‘downsize’ to free up a bit of cash…

Petty insults. Point scoring. Hmm….

No I know. It’s fun though. 😀

😀 See; intelligent people get it…

I’ve watched the show where the routine was performed, that’s all.

Repeatedly plagiarising a comedian doesn’t strike me as particularly intelligent.

Tough crowd. 😀

Maybe you didn’t get it after all…

Plenty are financially worse of, and have paused or ended successful careers, to serve as MPs. The leader of the party for one.

Until they get cushy ‘consultancy’ jobs where they shamelessly milk their political contacts for huge fees (see David Cameron).

My comment you’ve quoted there was about Labour MPs, and the idea that they are all dependent on being an MP for money and a career. Many are not. The leader included. Of course you can have plenty of money and still be on the take… no matter what party you are in. Cameron being just so blatant about it (getting Lex into no10 while he was PM, and shaping legislation to give him his own personal loophole) is still an eye opener though.

See; intelligent people get it…

If your gauge of intelligence is having seen and remembered a comedy routine from a not that famous person….

Your point wasn’t missed, it just isn’t very good. Most politicians are in the game for personal gain (be that power, fame, money or whatever), even if they may once have been driven by ideological principals. Starmer has done very well out of politics so far; being the leader of a collapsing failure of a party is pretty inconsequential in terms of his career. He’s still got a lot of eggs in his basket. And he’s got a house worth a fair few quid, if he ever needs to ‘downsize’ to free up a bit of cash…

I imagine he did better out of law and would have continued to do so. Anyone with parents who bought property in London has done well in terms of inheritance. Ed Miliband had to get his dad’s will posthumously rewritten to dodge inheritance tax, so much for his dad’s left wing principles

JC is probably wealthier, but obviously he’s a secular Saint for the left.

Tough crowd. 😀

Maybe you didn’t get it after all…

Yes, that must be it.

Ed Miliband had to get his dad’s will posthumously rewritten to dodge inheritance tax, so much for his dad’s left wing principles

I can’t get my head round that.
What do you mean “so much for his dad’s left wing principles”, are you seriously suggesting that Ralph Miliband is guilty of doing something unprincipled after he had died?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/11/keir-starmer-gavin-williamson-sacked-pandemic-failures

More of this please
Williamson is an obvious disaster and education is key,

Also puts Johnson in a bind, he hates being forced to do something by Starmer (in the case of lockdown 2 (at the cost of 1000s of lives)

I can’t get my head round that.
What do you mean “so much for his dad’s left wing principles”, are you seriously suggesting that Ralph Miliband is guilty of doing something unprincipled after he had died?

The family successfully argued that Ralph Miliband would have managed his affairs differently to be tax efficient in respect of inheritance tax and the value of the property owned. Whether Ralph span in his grave or not I cannot tell you.

Williamson’s position has always been one of the most precarious in the cabinet, with his stock low among Tory MPs. One said Williamson should have been “put out of his misery” a year ago over the exam results algorithm saga, adding: “No one has properly taken to task shit teaching, shit schools and shit headmasters – it’s utterly boring to hear complaints from middle-class MPs who fail these kids time after **** time.

“There is a moral urgency to sorting out our schools. If people in the Conservative party are not interested in that, they should get out of politics.”

To be honest the anonymous Tory MP has a better line on this than the shadow education secretary who seems to be invisible

More of this please

So Starmer does his usual trick of demanding that Johnson does something which he feels confident Johnson will do anyway, do we really need more of that?

Surely the Labour Party should be mounting a more constructive and positive opposition than that?

According to the article :

Asked by the Guardian whether he thought Johnson should take matters into his own hands and sack Williamson, Starmer said on Wednesday: “Yes, yes and a long time ago. And I don’t think I’m alone.”

But that’s after the Guardian’s article has already remarked :

Starmer has previously stopped short of demanding that Williamson should be removed from office, saying only that he had “failed over and over again”.

So the article completely contradicts Starmer.

Furthermore the article says :

Williamson’s position has always been one of the most precarious in the cabinet, with his stock low among Tory MPs. One said Williamson should have been “put out of his misery” a year ago over the exam results algorithm saga, adding: “No one has properly taken to task shit teaching, shit schools and shit headmasters – it’s utterly boring to hear complaints from middle-class MPs who fail these kids time after **** time.

So I think it is safe to say that if Williamson is sacked by Johnson it will have nothing to do with Starmer, even if Starmer thinks he can take the credit.

The family successfully argued that Ralph Miliband would have….

Ah, I hadn’t misunderstood, you were seriously accusing Ralph Miliband behaving unprincipled after he had died.

Well scraping the barrel comes into mind. But nevertheless interesting.

So another thread disappears down the swirling plughole of irrelevance.

Ah, I hadn’t misunderstood, you were seriously accusing Ralph Miliband behaving unprincipled after he had died.

You did misunderstand, Ralph didn’t make the change. His family said he would have. Again I don’t know if he spun in his grave afterwards or not.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11434504/Ed-Miliband-rewrote-his-fathers-will-to-cut-IHT.-Should-you-do-the-same.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

So another thread disappears down the swirling plughole of irrelevance.

Unfortunately as it’s the SKS thread it’s probably appropriate…..

Yeah I get your point. The surviving Milibands claimed that Ralph would have behaved in a certain way, they presumably managed to convince a judge of this. And based on that you are suggesting that Ralph Miliband was in some way unprincipled, as in :

So much for his dad’s left wing principles

Unfortunately as it’s the SKS thread it’s probably appropriate…..

It’s a political thread on stw, what possible relevance could it have to anything?

And I see no evidence that it’s disappearing anywhere. 207 pages so far and undoubtedly many more to come, certainly whilst Starmer remains leader.

OK for clarity, I’ll amend to “so much for respect for his dad’s left wing principles by the surviving family” as I keep stating Ralph Miliband didn’t make the changes to his will, the family claimed he would have.

Ed Balls even said he was going to close the loophole…..

& this is relevant how?

this is relevant how?

Tangential discussion after some vocal left wingers were highlighting that SKS had inherited property from his parents, was in politics for the money and alleged he was spending a lot of his time trying to secure cushy well paid consultancy roles for his post politics career rather than being a constituency MP and labour leader

JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader

If the Millibands tax affairs are still on your mind 10 years later wait til you hear about what the Tories have been up to recently! You’ll not sleep for weeks!

JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader

I’m 100% sure he doesn’t.

Tangential discussion after some vocal left wingers were highlighting that SKS had inherited property from his parents, was in politics for the money and alleged he was spending a lot of his time trying to secure cushy well paid consultancy roles for his post politics career rather than being a constituency MP and labour leader

I don’t know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it’s not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don’t get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.

He doesn’t strike me as someone who wants to change the world.

Nor do I believe becoming Leader of the Opposition suggests a huge personal sacrifice or a damaging career move.

I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.

I find myself asking what the **** do they know about that? But of course it’s not what they know but who they know.

I’m curious

JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader

How did you arrive at this? Anything to back it up?

‘I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.’

quids pro quo innit

I don’t know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it’s not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don’t get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.

A good example if how he reacted in the clip talking to people in Blackpool. Just acknowledged what they said (massive generalisation) and just tried to pacify them by sort of agreeing a bit or saying nothing. Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.

If your gauge of intelligence is having seen and remembered a comedy routine from a not that famous person….

Ah, is someone feeling a bit left out?

JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader

Perfect time to throw this one straight backatcha: Do you actually believe the tripe you write? If someone’s ability to research even the simplest of topics can be a gauge of intelligence, then, well… 😀

I mean come on; even the laziest Google reveals this is utter bollocks. Ever heard of Tony Blair? 😀

I don’t know why Starmer is in politics

Power and money. Why else?

Power and money. Why else?

Don’t forget the puppet masters controlling him

How did you arrive at this? Anything to back it up?

No and as Bridges points out I had forgotten about Blair. To be fair Brown may be doing alright as well. Happy to be corrected.

A good example if how he reacted in the clip talking to people in Blackpool. Just acknowledged what they said (massive generalisation) and just tried to pacify them by sort of agreeing a bit or saying nothing. Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.

I’d be careful what you take from the Blackpool etc sessions, they were billed as a listening exercise, you can’t do that if you are the one doing the talking. But I agree that KS needs to be able to convince people that he has answers. Conference is going to be really important.

Don’t forget the puppet masters controlling him

Is that the same people that @Bliss refers to or is this a different set of all powerful people running the world?

I don’t know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it’s not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don’t get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.

He doesn’t strike me as someone who wants to change the world.

His history as a lawyer suggests otherwise but his approach seems to be inline with his profession, almost a straightjacket

Nor do I believe becoming Leader of the Opposition suggests a huge personal sacrifice or a damaging career move.

I have immense sympathies it will be as mad as a box of frogs. All his time will be dominated by it, I don’t see him taking TOIL

I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.

I find myself asking what the **** do they know about that? But of course it’s not what they know but who they know.

And how things get done

It will tighten again, the Cameron fiasco will see to that. Same could be said for civil servants, military, doctors etc it’s not unique to politics

Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.

If there’s anything we’ve learnt over the past few years it’s that we can’t make people re-think.

People don’t want to be told what to think (especially from ‘the establishment’) and will actively push against it, becoming more entrenched in their beliefs.

Political leaders can sell their vision but they cannot be pushy in doing so. Ideas need to be sold in a way where individuals are making a choice of their own free will because it’s something THEY want.

Look at how brexit was sold. All the money spent on feeding very subtle messages to people on social media so they could make their ‘own decisions’ based on the evidence they saw in front of them. And now no amount of argument will change their minds, they’ve bought in. Boris just needed to come along and tell people he was going to deliver it and he’s worshipped like a king.

But we see rebellion again now against the government because they tell people what to do during Covid. Rebellion against the ‘experts’ because they ‘tell people what to do’.

Before you know it, you have flat earthers…

Don’t forget the puppet masters controlling him

Ah, someone else is also feeling a bit left out. You’ve been proven wrong and had to apologise previously, so why continue down the same path of stupidity? Strange.

Is that the same people that @Bliss refers to or is this a different set of all powerful people running the world?

You really are angry, aren’t you? Got anything other than ad hominems and offensive insinuations? Keep them coming; it only serves to undermine your already pathetically weak arguments even further. You’ve got nothing else. How sad. 🙁

No and as Bridges points out I had forgotten about Blair. To be fair Brown may be doing alright as well. Happy to be corrected.

You’ve also forgotten Milliband, and Starmer… 😀

And Neil Kinnock

And how things get done

I made a point of saying that I never ceased to be amazed how “even failed” senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.

Today Nick Clegg is earning about half a million quid a year working for Facebook (which is considerably more than he earned as deputy prime minister) because he failed to hold onto his Westminster seat in 2017.

Is he really an expert on getting things done (apart from looking after his own arse)?

He shafted the Liberal Democrats and destroyed the support his predecessors had spent years building up. The LibDems still haven’t recovered the support he destroyed and it’s anyone’s guess when or if they will ever recover.

Was this a cunning plan carefully executed all along? In which case yes, he certainly knows how to get things done.

I suspect however that the answer is no and it’s more who he knows that what he knows.

And I don’t know why you think Starmer’s profession as a lawyer handicaps his ability to express passion, do think he is so intellectually inept that he can’t fake it?

Tony Blair didn’t seem to have a problem, despite being both a lawyer and self-serving. Although to be fair I never understood what Blair was passionate about – lots of words but very hard if not impossible to find any substance.

Ah, someone else is also feeling a bit left out. You’ve been proven wrong and had to apologise previously, so why continue down the same path of stupidity? Strange.

I apologised for another comment which had nothing to do with your puppet masters nonsense.
You need to lighten up a bit by the way, the puppet masters continuation is just taking the piss a bit as you had got in such a mess about it.

I apologised for another comment which had nothing to do with your puppet masters nonsense.

I can’t be bothered trawling thought all the shit on here, but as I remember it, it was related to certain insinuations and false accusations. And you had to apoloigise. So, you know…

You need to lighten up a bit by the way, the puppet masters continuation is just taking the piss a bit as you had got in such a mess about it.

OH I need to lighten up? That’s very funny. 😀 You’re one of the people who keep trying to use it as a slur against me, for lack of any intelligent argument. I’ve challenged anyone to actually prove what they’re insinuating, so far, not a single one has managed to do so. Again; if you think you have a case, go for it. Or you can continue bringing it up, and continue to look stupid. Your choice. I see you’re now trying to hide behind a pathetic defence of it’s ‘just taking the piss a bit’.Cowardly. You can’t even back yourself up over it. The thing about debate is, if you don’t have an intelligent argument, it’s probably best you keep silent really. All you do by persisting with your nonsense, is make yourself look even more of a Rule 1 breaker. End of.

And Neil Kinnock

So basically, every Labour leader in recent history is actually wealthier than Corbyn? But what about ‘JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader’?

😀 Comedy Gold.

Although to be fair I never understood what Blair was passionate about

Making himself and his family very, very rich?

You really are angry, aren’t you? Got anything other than ad hominems and offensive insinuations? Keep them coming; it only serves to undermine your already pathetically weak arguments even further. You’ve got nothing else. How sad

Nope, just keep asking who these people are who seem to run the world

The best bit is that it was a response to Kerley which clearly triggered you

As for all (including JC) the recent labour leaders they are all millionaires through inheritance, property, earnings and pensions. They are part of a class of winners in our society.

And I don’t know why you think Starmer’s profession as a lawyer handicaps his ability to express passion, do think he is so intellectually inept that he can’t fake it?

I don’t think it’s an intellectual thing. You can disagree with my thoughts on this, maybe it encapsulates the challenges he faces

Is he really an expert on getting things done (apart from looking after his own arse)?

In part yes he is, I read at the time he was notorious for not reading the briefings from civil servants and going into each meeting with the line “what’s the politics of this” and then cuffing it

Facebook’s problem is a regulatory one, he is part of a rearguard action to enable Facebook to manoeuvre into a space it’s comfortable with. It appears to be successful so far.