Forum menu
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.
It 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.
The BoE manage the QE/QT programme, not the government, same with rates.
I get what the BOE is in charge of, I was wondering why these moves are being made and a 5% base rate with 2.5% inflation figure and a flat economy is there not a risk of tipping into recession?
Think they are less worried about recession, hence freezing and seeing what impact other things have before reviewing a rates cut next time, would love a rates cut, getting a mortgage renewal soon, but the reality is that a lot of analysts predicted this, with a battle between controlling inflation versus lower growth being at the centre of it.
with a battle between controlling inflation versus lower growth being at the centre of it.
The growth has traditionally been low even with low interests rates.
Inflation would have receded anyway and it's unlikely that interest rates are effective (nominally) - I mean paying millionaires 5% return is hardly going in the right direction when you're attempting to contract the economy.
BoE have not really been in control of inflation in the way they think they have.
The fact the Fed started cutting with 0.5 is interesting.
Anyway, back to the PM’s perks picked-up by the popular press . . . great fun for a little lighthearted merriment. However, a tit-bit that they’ve not bothered with yet, but was mentioned by Damo on YouTube yesterday was this little story ‘Labour given £4m from tax haven-based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms’. I imagine that four million quid buys a lot of favours.
I'm normally happy to give news reporting a pass for the sorts of hyperbole and the 'slips' of grammatical inference that slant stories to a particular agenda, it goes with the territory, and you get used to spotting it. That Open Democracy piece is woeful even by the [very] looser standards of internet partisanship that don't have to worry about print journalism standards, which are let's face it; not particularly stringent.
This means that despite being made on 28 May, Quadrature’s generous donation was published by the Electoral Commission only last week, more than two months after Labour won the election.
Starmer says that there is a substantial difference between declaration and corruption, which reminds me of how during the parliamentary expenses scandal many MPs justified their greed by pointing out that it was within the rules, which it mostly was.
But what strikes at the very heart of the above revelation is the deliberate attempt to withhold the truth.
So much for honesty and integrity from the Labour leadership.
Anyway, back to the PM’s perks picked-up by the popular press . . . great fun for a little lighthearted merriment. However, a tit-bit that they’ve not bothered with yet, but was mentioned by Damo on YouTube yesterday was this little story ‘Labour given £4m from tax haven-based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms’. I imagine that four million quid buys a lot of favours.
I think for every £1 million donated the company should get at least a 10% deduction on their tax, and at least one waiver against applicable regulation or legislation that they want, this of course would only be covered in the 12 months post donation.
That Open Democracy piece is woeful even by the [very] looser standards of internet partisanship that don’t have to worry about print journalism standards, which are let’s face it; not particularly stringent.
What did the article say that was untrue?
What did the article say that was untrue?
Precisely.
The biggest ever single donation to the Labour Party? A hedge fund based, off-shore, in the Cayman Islands? Links to private health, fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers? Potentially dodgy timing so it didn’t have to be declared until NOW? The absolute ****ers, how dare they?
Dodgy donation, and the timing says that they knew it would be seen that way. It would be lovely to think that national votes can be won on the back of just small donations from us little people, but it’s not true, is it. I hope the donator’s backing for renewables goes well beyond greenwashing… if what they’re expecting out of this is the UK accelerating its green energy transition, well I hope that happens… and I’m indifferent to them (and others) making money out of that.
if what they’re expecting out of this is the UK accelerating it’s green transition
I would suggest thats optimistic to say the least. You only need to look at Drax to see that "green transition" translate in many eyes to "profit" or just look at some of the games being played around carbon credits and the use of rainforest carbon offsets.
If thats not enough Macquarie have got heavily into solar energy. Given how they trashed the water system do you really think they have found a conscience?
That's it for me, how do we overthrow this corrupt and far right government that we've had to suffer for so long and install our rightful champions of the people?!
I would suggest thats optimistic to say the least
Fair. It’s a very big “if”…
That’s it for me, how do we overthrow this corrupt and far right government that we’ve had to suffer for so long and install our rightful champions of the people?!
Did Binners make that image for you, it's as hilarious as when he posts them.
Questioning what we hoped was a party better than the tory party in pretty much every way is the right thing to do isn't it? (Especially so when so far they don't really seem to appear to be much better)
That’s it for me, how do we overthrow this corrupt and far right government that we’ve had to suffer for so long and install our rightful champions of the people?!
Well I don't know about that but I do know how you deal with any criticism of the current prime minister, it has become a very clear pattern...... you somehow mention Corbyn.
At least Kelvin puts a bit of effort into it, if he bothers at all.
What did the article say that was untrue?
Passages like this;
Neither the Labour Party press office nor No 10 responded to openDemocracy’s questions on whether the timing of accepting this donation was intended to minimise scrutiny and critical coverage during the election.
Are no better than "when did you stop beating your wife" or more precisely "Does your contempt for the UK's laws influence your acceptance of this donation from those people of whom we don't approve" and are about as transparent in their slant. I don't mind writers taking sides, or having an agenda in fact there's probably an argument for doing it more on subjects, but this speculation touted as 'journalism' is wild
Well I don’t know about that but I do know how you deal with any criticism of the current prime minister, it has become a very clear pattern…… you somehow mention Corbyn.
As I mentioned before, If you don't support this govt feel free to make any criticism or be as partisan as you want, just don't clutch at your pearls when others do the same in return. It's silly.
Passages like this
It is perfectly standard protocol for an investigative piece to mention that specific questions were put to whoever they were investigating, and what their replies were or whether they didn't even bother replying. They all do it.
It doesn't suggest that they have said anything untrue, you're clutching straws.
Are no better than “when did you stop beating your wife” or more precisely “Does your contempt for the UK’s laws influence your acceptance of this donation from those people of whom we don’t approve” and are about as transparent in their slant. I don’t mind writers taking sides, or having an agenda in fact there’s probably an argument for doing it more on subjects, but this speculation touted as ‘journalism’ is wild
I asked you if there were any untruths in the article. You seem to be answering a different question. In any case, it's not clear to me why you seem so upset: the timing is certainly convenient, so it's reasonable to ask Labour if it was a factor.
just don’t clutch at your pearls when others do the same in return.
You are joking, I think it's great when argee can't think of anything else to say other than to somehow mention Corbyn.......it is a public declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, I love it!
It doesn’t suggest that they have said anything untrue, you’re clutching straws.
If you believe that, I've a bridge to sell you
As I mentioned before, If you don’t support this govt feel free to make any criticism or be as partisan as you want, just don’t clutch at your pearls when others do the same in return. It’s silly.
We don't all see it as a football match.
We don’t all see it as a football match.
Oh give over, you're yakking on a bike forum to put off that bit of work you don't want to start just before lunch on a Friday.
Oh give over, you’re yakking on a bike forum to put off that bit of work you don’t want to start just before lunch on a Friday.
Absolutely. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Please don't judge everyone else through the lens of your own motivations.
Uh huh, you love being reminded about what a complete and utter failure Corbyn was, I can tell.
Really? You want to follow argee diversionary tactic and divert the thread onto Corbyn?
You have also obviously run out of anything constructive to say with regards to the latest revelations.
And as you know I have never been Corbyn's biggest fan, for a variety of reasons, from his cringing level of wokeism, to his commitment to a second referendum, things which cost Labour dearly in 2019.
Oh give over, you’re yakking on a bike forum to put off that bit of work you don’t want to start just before lunch on a Friday.
Gosh, I wasn't exaggerating when I said that you had run out of constructive argument.
Although to be fair given what you were trying to defend that comes as no great surprise
There does appear to be a correlation between how far to the left you are and the reduction in a sense of humour that occurs on a sliding scale ;o)
Right-wingers are renowned for their hilarious sense of humour, unlike lefties. Just think of all those famous right-wing comedians.
There does appear to be a correlation between how far to the left you are and the reduction in a sense of humour that occurs on a sliding scale ;o
That's not fair you've got Jim Davidson fighting your corner there.
There does appear to be a correlation between how far to the left you are and the reduction in a sense of humour that occurs on a sliding scale ;o)
I didn't know you lived in Edinburgh.
https://twitter.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1837069197735596530?t=Sm3CF4bD6DHkwleQLAtU9A&s=19
Comedy gold though here.
I remember a while back Ernie talking about how Keir Starmer would make a terrible PM. 2 months in his personal and party poll ratings have collapsed, he's mired in sleaze allegations, and his staff are fighting and briefing against each other. And now as we see above he's making Johnsoneque claims about stuff that hasn't even happened yet (remind anyone of the 40 hospitals?). I suppose he hasn't crashed the economy yet (give it time with Reeves' suicidal budget), but he's giving Liz Truss and Sunak a run for their money.
Yep, wait 14 years to get a Labour government and this is what you get. All those people I would argue against when they said "they are all the same", I now realise they were right.
There's an awful lot of false equivalence going on here... but it's to be expected... and it is a failure of leadership to not see this stuff coming and head it off (the football stuff being the most obvious... just pay the extra to be upgraded from stands to a box... or watch at home).
I just don't know how the country is still functioning with all the failures and scandals, i'm amazed there's not militias running the streets just now
The "scandal" that some anonymous staffers don't like Sue Gray being well paid, and some even better paid journalists are making as much out of it is possible? As boring as the campaign clothes and specs. Party funding could really put fuel on the fire of the "they're all same" bin fire though... it'll put pressure on for the reform of campaign rules I suspect, and rightly so. A maximum on individual's donations would be sound... as would a total ban on donations via offshore companies of any kind... change is required, and applied to all parties, urgently.
I just don’t know how the country is still functioning with all the failures and scandals, i’m amazed there’s not militias running the streets just now
Only a sour-faced lefty wouldn't find that funny.
Marina Hyde in "that" newspaper is on form and on Starmer today. I won't bother quoting the bits on Starmer because it would be repeating what STWers have already said above but I did like this about one of his benefactors:
As for the type of person we’re dealing with … listen, I don’t want to say Waheed Alli “divides opinion”, because you know what? This week I asked several people in the know about him to give their opinion and they all said the exactly same thing. Unfortunately, it’s a single word that we don’t use in the Guardian unless it’s in reported speech.
Ah, the naughty Guardian are at it again....
With the best glasses donor money can buy, surely Starmer can see that this week has been a total disaster
Marina Hyde
This week I asked several people in the know about him to give their opinion and they all said the exactly same thing.
It would be interesting to know who she asked, and to compare their record with his.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli
I just don’t know how the country is still functioning with all the failures and scandals, i’m amazed there’s not militias running the streets just now
It is functioning exactly as it has been for the last 14 years, no better and no worse. Not sure why you are being so melodramatic about it, presumably you think Starmer is doing really well and there are no comments to be made about him on a 'UK government thread'?
Should we not be critical of Starmer for some reason?
no better and no worse
Not sure if nurses, doctors, teachers, train staff etc would agree with you.
Well "we" wouldn't be better off without Alli. If you and all your family and friends in the UK are straight, then you might not agree. He could well also be an "unmentionable word" for others to deal with though of course. Or those that speak ill of him might be. Who knows.
Being gay doesn't make Survivor or the Big Breakfast any more classy. You're stepping into the dangerous territory of positive discrimination. Dross is dross whoever makes it and whatever their chosen gender or sexual preferences. I read read your link and it reinforced my view that I'd be better of without all he has achieved.
Not sure if nurses, doctors, teachers, train staff etc would agree with you.
What they would think the country is now functioning better just because they have had a pay rise. I doubt that many of them are so self absorbed to judge how a country is functioning against whether they have had a pay rise or not.
With the best glasses donor money can buy, surely Starmer can see that this week has been a total disaster
Marina Hyde
Marina Hyde turning on Starmer is going to confuse a few people on here. They'll have to find someone else to tell them what to think.
It is functioning exactly as it has been for the last 14 years, no better and no worse. Not sure why you are being so melodramatic about it
I do like the word melodramatic being used in the same thread that's got some proper guff said in it with a supporting article from the weird and wonderful internet!