UK Government Thread

All that’s left is for them to do the honourable thing and quit, call an election and let labour bring back all the independents to sort it all out with integrity and honour.

All that’s left is for them to do the honourable thing and quit, call an election and let labour bring back all the independents to sort it all out with integrity and honour

Or they could own their mistakes and give us a thwacking great budget?

But they won’t because they haven’t got a clue how to govern.

It’s been said – copying the Tory’s politics and ideals is just a bad cover version.

Better to have a strong ideology than appear to be freeloading incompetent centrists?

Nobody wins now. They need to own it.

An opportunity wrecked.

Who the F spends 14 grand on a birthday party!? Labour MPs ‘of the people, for the people’ my arse. Do they not realise that they are held to different standards?

Well-put.

Who the F spends 14 grand on a birthday party!? Labour MPs ‘of the people, for the people’ my arse. Do they not realise that they are held to different standards?

Its terrible, when will this lame duck government just call time on their leadership fiasco!

Its terrible, when will this lame duck government just call time on their leadership fiasco!

You should try a different tactic argee, belittling people’s genuine and justified displeasure at senior Labour politicians blatant and obvious greed is probably not the best one.

Is it just me or is the Labour conference slogan like a bad Hollywood movie title? Given the last two months would be described as ‘More of the same’ I guess it’s a tiny improvement but it seems to betray their lack of ambition. I wonder what other slogans they considered?

Blimey, less than three months into government and the mid-term blues has already kicked in :

?LATEST @OpiniumResearch/@ObserverUK poll?

On the eve of the first Labour Party Conference since they came into power, Keir Starmer’s approval rating is at its lowest ever (-26%), down by 45 points from his first approval rating as prime minister (+19%). pic.twitter.com/4wxKiTj3LB

— Opinium (@OpiniumResearch) September 21, 2024

Down by 45 points from his first approval rating as prime minister??

And according to the naughty Guardian Starmer is now less popular than Rishi Sunak! How the **** did that happen in less than 3 months?

Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak, poll suggests

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/21/honeymoon-over-keir-starmer-now-less-popular-than-rishi-sunak

I guess it’s a tiny improvement but it seems to betray their lack of ambition

“Change Begins”

A lack of ambition, or grounded in the reality of the problems faced and the timescales needed?

Whatever/whichever, Robert Harris uses it to call for council houses built by (ie paid for by) councils… with increased central government funding…

https://apple.news/AoeeyG1oJRNG_AOQ7QvgKDA

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/22/labour-conference-liverpool-housing-crisis

This is pretty normal for any government at any point in its cycle, the tories got it for most of the 14 years they were in power and Blair and Brown’s governments before that were in media crisis after crisis for dodgy looking stuff the whole time they were in power.

There’s nothing special about this and probably impossible to avoid as a government no matter how strait laced you are because there’ll always be something you misstep on or misjudge.

That’s not an argument you heard very often on stw when the Tories were in government.

It turns out that ‘media crises’ are perfectly normal and it happened the whole time that Blair and Brown were in government.

So no “change” there then. Apart from perhaps a change of wardrobe.

It’s not exactly a crisis, they are a majority government, there is no internal attempts to move anyone, it’s all journalists raising stories due to funds and things that occurred during the pre-election, party fundraising and election campaign, most of it centred on one of the key labour fundraisers giving personal funds, or assets to assist labour during their campaign.

Pretty sure all i’ve read from watchdogs and parliamentary bodies is that no rules have been broken.

Pretty sure all i’ve read from watchdogs and parliamentary bodies is that no rules have been broken.

As was the case for the vast majority of MPs in the expenses scandal.

As was the case for the vast majority of MPs in the expenses scandal.

Good analogy, well apart from those who were made to pay back expenses and either resigned or were not selected at the next election, and of course, the expenses was taxpayers money, with a lot of clear fraud being treated with kid gloves.

Good analogy, well apart from those who were made to pay back expenses and either resigned or were not selected at the next election, and of course, the expenses was taxpayers money, with a lot of clear fraud being treated with kid gloves.

Good comeback, apart from me saying “vast majority” and not “all”.

Anyway, the solution was given up thread: buy your own stuff.

Which they’re doing now, but ‘buy your own stuff’ in elections is basically use party funds (donations), so things like the £4 million from venture capitalists becomes more important in future.

By the time Labour have done taking all these freebies they could have donated that money to plug the mystical black hole.

;)

With Waheed Alli having only donated 500k since Starmer took over Labour, they’d have had to buy a money press and attempted to implement MMT to fill that black hole ;o)

Which they’re doing now,

Having belatedly conceded that “within the rules” doesn’t make it ok.

It’s not exactly a crisis, they are a majority government, there is no internal attempts to move anyone

Airvent specifically referred to ‘media crisis’. The claim was made that Blair and Brown’s governments were in media crisis after crisis for dodgy looking stuff the whole time they were in power, despite is no internal attempts to move anyone.

What would you call Starmer defending his decision to accept nearly £2k from Lord Alli for “work clothing” and then after days of huge media coverage and criticism that he was out of touch with ordinary people publicly announcing that he will no longer be doing it?

I would call that a media crisis. Although some people like to amusingly refer to it as Wardrobegate, which of course brings back memories of Wallpapergate.

What were your views of Wallpapergate btw?

What’s it saying when someone on £163,000/yr can’t afford to buy his own suits and glasses?

To be fair it’s a piss poor salary for running the country and glasses are stupidly expensive.

his decision to accept nearly £2k from Lord Alli for “work clothing”

Sorry I obviously missed a zero out. It should of course say his decision to accept nearly £20k from Lord Alli for “work clothing” 

Phillipson is hilarious. In addition to receiving 14k for her birthday bash she’s also defending freebies to Wimbledon and Taylor Swift gigs. Seems her entire defence is one of ‘whts the point in being a senior MP/minister if you can’t enjoy the trappings of power. The rest of them clearly think the same. Next we’ll find out that Angie Rayners coke and pills in Ibiza were paid for by a labour supporting dealer.

The correct response from a strong government would be to stop all donations to any party or MP by putting rules in place. If any people want to donate to the workings of government then they donate to a central pool where the money gets equally distributed across each party to give all parties the same amount to run, stand for election and so on. After all, it is not very democratic for one party to have more money than another when it comes to elections.

I imagine the amount of donations would drop to pretty much zero if that was put in place.

by putting rules in place.

There are. It’s how we know that Starmer and others accepted all the gifts.

 they donate to a central pool where the money gets equally distributed across each party

Which s fine in theory, but the point for many donors is seeing the political party that they support in power. And it won’t be distributed equally will it? If you’re a working person standing in a seat against a wealthy opponent who can afford to spend any amount to get elected, how are you going to align it so that they get to spend the same amount? A quick google reveals that is about £41 thousand to get elected, while it’s less than I though, it’s still a chunk of change, what’ll you do if the central pool can’t afford it?

While I’d be all for taking money out of politics in theory, you then admit that it’s either going to only be attractive or open to candidates like Rees-Mogg and the like who can afford to campaign, or the public pay for political parties which is equally unattractive – do you want your taxes to go to the Tories directly?

Starmer’s approach is one of technocratic managerialism, the LP can sort out capitalism better than the capitalists, and therefore you need to look and behave like a manager. Hence swishly suited and booted, hobnob with the rich and behave dictatorally with the party and the nation. The poor can be fobbed off with flag-waving and football and the pensioners are all rich and vote Tory anyway. Not sure how well it’s all working out though.

and glasses are stupidly expensive.

So what do you suggest the millions of people who need glasses and aren’t the beneficiaries of a bloke with £250 million quid in the bank do?

I remember Starmer debating Sunak and declaring that he would never, ever, use private healthcare. Is getting someone else to spunk £6k on glasses not a bit hypocritical?

Is getting someone else to spunk £6k on glasses not a bit hypocritical?

It depends doesn’t it? If Starmer accepted the offer for spectacles by saying “I want these £6 grand pair thanks” then probably, if he just said “yes” to the offer without the cost or price being discussed at all*, then maybe he’s just a bit too naïve, which so far, he’s shown time and again that that’s the case.

* which to be fair; given that he’s terribly British, doesn’t seem beyond the realms of possibility, frankly

To be fair it’s a piss poor salary for running the country and glasses are stupidly expensive.

It’s always been part of the ‘holier than thou’ approach to PMs, they get paid less than a lot of civil servants and so on, the whole Sue Gray thing is weird, as she is probably not in the top 100 civil servants pay list.

As for the clothes, again, i seriously doubt this was Starmer updating his wardrobe for himself, there would have been a stylist involved, and a focus on how to get him from being boring, to suitable for TV interviews and so on, it would not have been a pretty woman type event where Alli gave him his credit card and said go wild.

Same with the ’14k birthday party’, reading more into it, it was two events, both of which set up to provide her with a stage to schmooze with the press, potential donors, trade unions and industry people, not her family and friends having a good old sing song on her 40th, neither event took place on her birthday.

if he just said “yes” to the offer without the cost or price being discussed at all*

Brilliant ! That is the most hilarious attempt at justifying  obvious greed which I have yet heard……..he possibly had no idea how ridiculously expensive those glasses were because innate British politeness doesn’t ask such things!

Pay might not be brilliant relatively but they do appear to become surprisingly rich when they leave office. I seem to remember Blair suddenly becoming a major landlord and Johnson going from borrowing from a ‘remote cousin in Canada’ and freeby wall paper to buying a house in the Cotswolds for millions and then having a pool installed. I’d be very interested to know how you do that, seems like a magic money tree does exist after all.

a focus on how to get him from being boring, to suitable for TV interviews and so on

Ah, that will explain why I find Starmer more interesting and less boring than I did previously, it’s all down to the extraordinarily expensive suits that he now wears.

And yes I have heard that Philipson’s £14k birthday party was in fact a political event. What else would you call a birthday party where someone mentions politics? Every politician’s birthday party is a political event!

And yes I have heard that Philipson’s £14k birthday party was in fact a political event. What else would you call a birthday party where someone mentions politics? Every politician’s birthday party is a political event!

Even though it wasn’t on her birthday, or attended by her kids and relatives, but by pretty much all work related people, if that was my birthday party i’d pay to not have it.

Pay might not be brilliant relatively but they do appear to become surprisingly rich when they leave office

I think for a long time it was the justification for the piss poor pay they receive. The Chancellor at the uni my wife works at earns more or less four times what the PM does, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the same isn’t true for most NHS trusts (as a random example) and senior civil servants. I think PMs even have to pay tax for living above the shop as a BIK.

I’m not surprised at some people balking at the leader of the opposition having “a look” plastered on him in the run up to a general election… we want people to just “be themselves”… not receive glow ups and “fancy” glasses… but this is the political reality… it comes with the job. Part of the campaign absolutely is nailing the look unfortunately. If you’re doing everything you can to get your MPs elected.

Campaign costs not coming from the pocket of the candidate is still such a non-story… unless you’re hungry for a story.

To be clear though… I feel differently about both the football and the off-shore large donation though. The first was an obvious own goal that should have been avoided. The second might be inside the rules… but it’s dodgy as hell and I would like to see such donations banned and the rules changed.

Even though it wasn’t on her birthday

Yup, even though it wasn’t on her actual birthday. It is not unusual to celebrate a birthday on a more convenient day than the actual date you know.

Her 40th birthday was central to the reason for having a party.

There’s some desperate straw clutching going on here. With all the disingenuous excuses which would typically come out of Boris Johnson’s mouth.

The correct response from a strong government would be to stop all donations to any party or MP by putting rules in place. If any people want to donate to the workings of government then they donate to a central pool where the money gets equally distributed

I suspect that’s pretty much what SKS would prefer; the problem is for anyone other than the tories to push for this it comes across as “they’ve got more donors than us – that’s not fair”.    The reasonable solution is not to rely on donations but rather to accept that functioning democracy needs elected politicians and opponents and fund it through taxation.

across each party to give all parties the same amount to run, stand for election and so on.

All parties?  So you think Countbinface, the BNP etc should have the same funds as Lab/Con/LibD, even pro-rata’d per seat that would seem to be funding the absurd?

After all, it is not very democratic for one party to have more money than another when it comes to elections.

You could argue it is entirely democratic – if your party is popular it will manage to raise more support!

I imagine the amount of donations would drop to pretty much zero if that was put in place.

I think the things people get especially uncomfortable with are donations to individuals/personal campaigns; huge donations (or multiple donations from the same individual) that are far bigger than any “ordinary” individual could make; donations that come from corporate bodies (and perhaps Unions) where there’s clearly some direct link between donation and policy direction. It feels like that could be solved by separating donations from specific actions more clearly, e.g. donations to a central party only, who then distribute the funds on a clear, published and transparent basis (each party could decide if it wants to treat all seats the same, put more effort into seats it already holds, seats with narrow margins, seats with government ministers etc).

Clearly there is an issue with honours for donations – there should probably be some sort of block on any honor for anyone who directly (or through a company) could be seen to have donated to get it: perhaps anyone in the top 20% of donors is barred from honors for 3 yrs, top 10% for 5yrs, top 5% for 10 yrs.  Equally anyone who had been given an honor should similarly be barred from donations of certain sizes, for certain periods.

There was an interesting point in an interview the other day.  As shadow minister for Sport attending say Wimbledon would be declarable but the incumbent minister would not need to declare it, as that is a “ministerial duty”.   The question then arose whether attending your local football team playing was something you should pay for or should be given to an MP as a “gift”.   Ironically, if the person likes football the gift will have more impact than it would on me.  However, if they liked football and are a pillar of their local community you might expect they sometimes go to see their local team play at their own expense.  However, if I was an MP and had very little interest in football but the football team want me to see the great youthwork we are doing, understand the redevelopment of the stand or share concerns about how regulation affects smaller/bigger teams differently, then inviting me along as a special guest might be exactly how to get the issues on my agenda!

The pot idea is not viable, can you see trade unions funnelling £10 million into it knowing they’re sticking £2 million or more into tory or reform pockets?

Same with the GBNews guys donations, or the reform multi-millionaire, they’re not going for that, an idea that was floated a while ago was actual government funding used to pay for campaigning, but then you get another messy problem of spending £100 million on campaigns that could be spent on the NHS or the likes.

There’s some desperate straw clutching going on here.

Are you not entertained by the mental gymnastics?

Reeves says Labour is not a party of protest in response to anti-arms trade protesters saying we shouldn’t be selling arms to Israel. She’s right, they’re the party of genocide and death, among a few other things. God I despise her!