UK Government Thread

If you don’t mind me asking, although presumably you do.

Was in direct reference to what has this got to do with the UK government. Despite copying and pasting the question Nick you only want to solely focus on further personal attacks, and then you have the nerve to talk about thread derailment.

Yeah I get it, me highlighting the hypocrisy of centrists suddenly discovering that Rosie Duffield is unfit to be a Labour MP straight after she resigns from the party, but not before she does, winds up people like you Nick.

So you resort to personal attacks and bullying tactics, completely derailing the thread in the process. And obviously it’s my fault.

Jeezus Jonv let it go. I throw in the towel, you are right about everything. Stop trying to drag a pointless “argument” (it wasn’t an argument, I didn’t challenge anything you said) into a second week. Seriously, get a grip.

Any updates on this? I tipped someone off and they have just asked me if Keir is still resigning.

I said that I would check 😉

Tomorrow it all comes out apparently.

Although the same accounts were also saying it would be all over the Sunday papers.

And still superinjunction mutterings

Tomorrow it all comes out apparently.

Cool. As I said previously personally I don’t believe for a minute that Starmer might be guilty of a resignable offence, but we shall see what, if anything, this is all about.

 And obviously it’s my fault.

well, we’ve found common ground finally.

Simon Case standing down due to ill health.

https://news.sky.com/story/uks-top-civil-servant-simon-case-announces-resignation-13225419

It’s a PM appointment after an open recruitment process, and apparently Case and Gray haven’t seen eye to eye…. so wonder how open that will be.

Wasn’t Case just a yes-man for Johnson?

I can see him having an issue with Sue Gray, TBH. If he’s anything like his master, her work ethic will have made him feel uncomfortable.

Why wasn’t his wage jumped on by the press? He earns more than the PM, there must be someone they could find to be unhappy about that so they could rustle up a story.

Sad that he’s leaving due to ill health.

Surprised he stayed in his post after the Covid enquiry (so far). I suppose “the politicans were worse” kept him moderately safe. Remember when someone was needed to collate records for the police though… he was unsuitable for good reason.

So if I’ve understood Starmer has done something that would noramlly force a resignation but we’ll never hear about it because superinjunctions. That does smack of conspiracy bollocks to dish dirt from fresh air. Russian propaganda merchants at work?

I’ve spent a week trying to get an answer to a question that you refuse to give.

TandemJeremy used to do that, Tjagain doesn’t, an example to follow, theotherjonv. Would you keep on asking the same question IRL? I wouldn’t: I not a cop, the Stasi or a Vichy.

Russian propaganda merchants at work?

Pretty much what I first thought, TBH.

So if I’ve understood Starmer has done something that would noramlly force a resignation but we’ll never hear about it because superinjunctions

Given what that gave Boris the chance to get away with, those Russian bots are going to have to be really creative to get my interest.

Hmmm – dipping into this thread just makes me think of sealions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

So if I’ve understood Starmer has done something that would noramlly force a resignation but we’ll never hear about it because superinjunctions. That does smack of conspiracy bollocks to dish dirt from fresh air. Russian propaganda merchants at work?

Hmm….. not a bad supposition. As example:

https://x.com/NicholasLissack (to save clicks for those that don’t want to fund Musk)

Nicholas Lissack / Political Commentator | Media Contributor

2h

Hearing whispers that Keir Starmer has slapped a ‘super injunction’ on the press to keep his personal life under wraps. I’m digging into it now and will confirm if it’s legit. Stay tuned for updates – follow for the truth!

and from yesterday

My source tells me that Keir Starmer is allegedly doubling down, telling his advisors he’s ready to battle it out and cling to power. But the cracks are showing. His inner circle is split – some urging him to bow out gracefully, while others insist on sticking with him to the bitter end. Meanwhile, high-profile Cabinet members are already sharpening their knives, scheming for the inevitable post-Starmer era. The real drama? Who’s poised to take the crown when Keir finally crumbles? Stay tuned — the power games are only just beginning!

– but then turns out that independent journalist Nick on his mission to uncover the truth is actually a Reform activist and Oakeshott’s researcher.

As I said when mentioning before – I ‘follow’ (mainly, haven’t blocked) some alternate sources to see what’s being said, rather than only have opinions close to my own thoughts. Also as said before – no smoke without fire??

Reform have a brief and shitty history of entirely manufactured fire-free smoke.

Quelle suprise, Tommy Robinson jumping on the bandwagon – Oi @Keir_Starmer I’m going to out every detail of your dirty secret at my next event. Here’s the crowd at our last one . Nothing can stop what’s coming . F*** your injunctions

I think it might be an old story which has resurfaced

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19947018.baroness-chapman-paid-false-claim-affair-keir-starmer/

So we now learn that a box at Arsenal is ok, but Taylor Swift tickets are not ok. It’s all very confusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/02/keir-starmer-pays-back-6000-worth-of-gifts-and-hospitality

Clearly a line he has drawn. IF I was a life long Arsenal fan I would put seeing them way above seeing Taylor Swift as would he I would guess. Makes it even worse though doesn’t it – it is either ethically right to accept gifts for potentially undisclosed returns or it isn’t.

I don’t think it’s overly confusing.

He’s said that they are bringing forward new rules on accepting hospitality donations to replace ‘best judgement’ that exists now, and in the meantime has repaid the ones he has had while they sort it out.

We are now going to bring forward principles for donations, because, until now, politicians have used their best individual judgment on a case-by-case basis. I think we need some principles of general application. So, I took the position that until the principles are in place it was right for me to make those repayments.

The football hospitality are tickets he would have bought / has already bought (season ticket) but on the advice of security has moved from stands to box – the cost of a security detail for him in the stands being more costly.

“Now I’m prime minister, the security advice is that I can’t go to the stands. Or if I did, you’d have to do so much to the security and it would cost the taxpayer a fortune as a result,” he told ITV London.

“I’ve been offered tickets elsewhere in the ground where it’s more secure. We don’t have to use taxpayer money on additional security. And that’s why I’ve taken the decision that I have.”

I agree that more scrutiny is needed with WHY donations are being made, and indeed Alli is now being investigated for that. And maybe it would have been better still if the PM had also repaid the box tickets too. But that latter point is tricky for me – it’s a security decision, to avoid criticism* do you say to hell with additional cost? Or should he cover the additional cost of going in the stands.

* [edited – I sad scrutiny, I mean criticism, I think. Nothing should be above scrutiny]

I don’t think it’s overly confusing.

Quite right. It was all ok, now some of it is ok. Perfectly clear.

One of the down sides of being a “star” is that public appearances become uncomfortable/risky so most stars act accordingly. I don’t think he should create a major security headache with his own selfish and perfectly futile whim of going to a football match. He’s clearly got enough income to pay for the box so if he wishes to go despite the risk and hassle for security he should pay for the box and leave the place in the stands for those who can’t afford a box.

Personally I’d rather he spent his weekends meeting people on zero hours contracts or working all hours on minimum wage temporary contracts that sat in box at a football stadium.

So we now learn that a box at Arsenal is ok, but Taylor Swift tickets are not ok. It’s all very confusing.

Which is all the more confusing for all of the other MPs who haven’t said anything and who don’t have a large security detail:

Independent
Byrne, Ian (Liverpool West Derby), William Hogan CEO Liverpool Football Club Foundation, two tickets, £900

Liberal Democrat
Davey, Ed (Kingston and Surbiton), The Football Association, two tickets, £584

Labour
Carden, Dan (Liverpool Walton), Liverpool Football Club, two tickets, £900
Johnson, Kim (Liverpool Riverside), Liverpool Football Club, two tickets, £900
Jones, Darren (Bristol North West), The Football Association Premier League Limited, four tickets, £3,400
McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North), The Football Association Premier League Limited, two tickets, £2,000
Morris, Joe (Hexham), Premier League, two tickets, £1,660. A spokesperson for Joe Morris MP said: “All donations are declared fully in line with parliamentary rules and procedures.”
Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South), The Football Association, two tickets, £522.54

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1952222/mp-freebies-taylor-swift-concert-labour-tory

Even more confusing that there isn’t a single conservative on the register

Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.

Ed – I can see your PoV but disagree, I want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up – just find a way to do it that isn’t open to allegations of tickets for who knows what, and do it in a way that’s cost effective to the tax payer.

He’s had £100k and he’s giving back £6k. Result!

Even more confusing that there isn’t a single conservative on the register

Already in the box next to the dodgy club owner.

Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.

The bit that I find confusing is that SKS has decided to pay back £6k, what about the others on the list?

It’s sleaze and SKS has decided to pay his way out. £32k for workwear? That’s an annual salary (or two) for many

what about the others on the list?

We are now going to bring forward principles for donations, because, until now, politicians have used their best individual judgment on a case-by-case basis. I think we need some principles of general application. So, I took the position that until the principles are in place it was right for me to make those repayments.

Up to them whether they repay them pending these new guidelines or not. Or; once the guidelines are agreed then they’ll either repay or not depending on what the guidelines say. IDK what happens if they repay and then guidelines say that they are allowed, can they then have it back again?

I want my politicians to be humans and humanist rather than lording-it-over-the-plebs privileged pricks who line their pockets with “favours”.

If he can’t cover the total cost of his hobby himself he shouldn’t go, if he needs more security than normal, he should pay. I can’t afford an Oassis ticket so I don’t go.

Signed, a pleb.

 if he needs more security than normal, he should pay.

No. It’s legitimate for a country to pay for the security detail of it’s PM. Asking Starmer (or any PM for that matter) to stump up for the costs of their own security would make the position untenable for anyone who doesn’t have millions in the bank. If you want your PM to an ‘everyman’ then suck it up.

IMO, if as the prime minister he invited to say the FA cup final, that is fine the invite is for the office not the person.

If he wants to watch his team, he should pay, security should be provided but he should pay for the box.

I can’t go to watch my team any more other than on very rare occasions, I just accept that my life has taken me away from that possibility and make do with watching it on TV, and with the inflation we have had and my wages not keeping pace,I have stopped my subscription for the european games this year because I can no longer justify the cost.

If he wants to preach about making tough decisions, then **** make some that impact his life and not just tough on everyone else.

Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?

Never mind about freebiegate/wardrobegate, this really isn’t good news for the government :

‘Very serious’: Bank of England governor warns of Middle East oil shock risk

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/03/its-tragic-bank-of-england-governor-watching-middle-east-crisis-closely

And Israel is seriously considering targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure, I guess it’s any easy target.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/02/israel-retaliation-may-target-iran-oil-infrastructure-analysts-say.html

It might not be the direct fault of the government (although telling Israel not to expand the war but then giving it full support when it does won’t have helped) but they will be held responsible for the knock on consequences to prices and the economy.

After all the Tories and the Liberal Democrats successfully managed to blame Labour for the consequences of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s

Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.

The only thing that’s perfectly clear is that it was all fine, now some of it isn’t fine. Of course, his supporters would be amongst the first to lambast the Tories for similar behaviour, but rank hypocrisy is all they seem to have left.

Ed – I can see your PoV but disagree, I want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up – just find a way to do it that isn’t open to allegations of tickets for who knows what, and do it in a way that’s cost effective to the tax payer.

This was dealt with several pages ago: pay for your own stuff.

Got to laugh at this process of going through the rules of what is and what ain’t. Stop wasting our time. It’s possible to abide by rules and it still not be a good thing.

You want to be whiter than white – pay for it yourself.

Any other option puts you close to a sleazy free-loading embarrassment that doesn’t understand that wealth has probably been extracted to give you that donation off the back of workers.

Starmer protecting capital until the next lot are ready.

want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up

I would like my leader to a be a human for sure and stop talking up tough choices about crippling people that have suffered enough in these poorly managed economic times – by being a Labour leader and dealing with all the current domestic problems that are effectively fixable.

That would be several time over better than going to a football match as a measure of what is human.

Should I start a new thread? This one seems to be bogged down in posts about Starmer being a dick. I keep coming in hoping for some news as to how Labour is undoing some of the unfairness the Tories dealt out over their years in power and just find more examples of Starmer being a dick. So how about a new “Benefits of Labour” thread along the lines of the benefits of Brexit thread but hopefully with some benefits.

Yes I know it’s early days but I’d like to see something about how Labour is implementing its promised major reforms of employment law for example.

Thing is I don’t see many leaders in that there big house.

I see a lot of managers that swing from mediocre at best to **** woeful.

But there aren’t any leaders, the prevailing culture of Westminster and fickleness of the electorate will prevent that.

We’re arguing over degrees of shit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2024/oct/03/keir-starmer-angela-rayner-donations-labour-conservatives-uk-politics-news-live

“Britain will still have delegated sovereignty over Diego Garcia, the only inhabited island in the archipelago”

So Britain is decolonising the Chagos Islands, as instructed to do so by the United Nations, but only the uninhabited ones. The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping. I bet the Chagossian are grateful!

The Chagossians…… expelled by a Labour government, still being screwed 50 years later by a Labour government.

UN court rules UK has no sovereignty over Chagos islands

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126

Still I guess it would be worse if we still had a Tory government, they would probably want to keep all those bits that nobody else wants. And I believe the deal involves Britain giving up sovereignty of Diego Gracia in 99 years, so one day the great great grandchildren of the expelled Chagossians might be able to live in the land of their forefathers. Thanks to British imperial generosity.

Ed this thread is about the current UK government, so it presumably covers all aspects of government affairs. There are undoubtedly some benefits which can be attributed to the current government, so let’s hear them. No need to start a new thread.

I am going to go away and will try to think of some, if that helps.

Still I guess it would be worse if we still had a Tory government, they would probably want to keep all those bits that nobody else wants.

Despite the frothing from the tories the negotiations were started under them a couple of years back. The islands were a pain in the arse which were only being held onto because they are strategically important to the USA.

So think it was a case of persuading the yanks to cut a deal with Mauritius which then allows us to wash our hands of it.

The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping.

Interesting. I thought the island of Diego Garcia was also included in the decision, with ownership returning to Mauritius. But Mauritius is allowing the base to stay (hence the new 99 year lease for the base).

The Tory response… “we need leadership, not legalese”… pesky laws.