FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmer: great or shit?
Starmer: great or shit?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" Not great , not shit, better than the alternative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s a John Major type. Wish he would nail his colours to the mast though. He’s a bit flighty " I didn't think much of Major back in the day. But seeing him now, he seems so much better than the current crop of Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s a John Major type. Wish he would nail his colours to the mast though. He’s a bit flighty I didn't think much of Major back in the day. But seeing him now, he seems so much better than the current crop of Tories." Agreed. He wasn’t what you call spectacular. Same as Kier he’s just a bit meh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" We will find out about him in a little under two years to time, when he's being sworn in as prime minister. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s a John Major type. Wish he would nail his colours to the mast though. He’s a bit flighty I didn't think much of Major back in the day. But seeing him now, he seems so much better than the current crop of Tories." Not inconsiderably! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" Torylite..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Viable until Sunak arrived" I think Starmer is competent but not charismatic. However, to be honest, if I want entertainment I will watch Jimmy Carr or Russell Howard. I don't want buffoon politics like Johnson and Trump or idiot politics like Truss. Give me stable, solid, plodding, dedication to the task leadership. However Sunak is doing well and is going to give Starmer a run for his money as he seems to be very sensible and safe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak vs Starmer hmmm Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Starmer - a person who had the audacity to buy a bit of land behind his Mum’s house so she could open a donkey sanctuary. Is Sunak doing a good job? We will see. The bar was set so low by Johnson and Truss that pretty much anyone else would look good/effective (apart from Matt Hancock - Sunak must be loving the timing of that leak after his gaff over NI being in such an amazing position with unfettered access to both the UK and EU markets). Starmer is dull dull dull and possibly someone who breaks pledges. We will see!" Sunak has created a quiet time, he has got on with his job and managed to bring a calm. It is not necessarily what he is doing, it is how has gone about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" Another career politician who will say popular things to climb the power ladder. No actual strong beliefs of his own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak." Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife?" Where his wife pays taxes is thought to be 'neither here nor there'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing that really grinds my gears about Starmer is how he handled the Beergate fiasco. He was banging on about Boris having a bit of cake for something like 6 months, calling for him to resign, simply for being under investigation until he got a fine. Boris never once made any comment that could have undermined that investigation. When the tables were turned and the pressure was on Starmer over whether he'd broken lockdown rules - he did rather protest too much and as soon as an investigation was launched, what did the former Director of Public prosecutions - who really should know better - do? Held a press conference about it, stating that he would resign if issued with a fine and directly undermining that investigation by putting pressure on the Durham constabulary. And surprise surprise, shortly after, the Chief superintendent of Durham Police had their contract renewed early - and who was the PCC? THat's right, the Labour member who Starmer had been up n Durham campaigning for in the first place. And there have been rumours going around that he was actually going to receive a fine - hence why the Chiefs contract was renewed. It was a pay off. This from 'Mr Integrity' who couldn't remember that Angela Rayner had been at the same event - despite them having conducted a quiz over Zoom. He's got less integrity than a dog turd" Boris was found guilty SKS wasn’t  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife? Where his wife pays taxes is thought to be 'neither here nor there'."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" I'm still undecided about him. If you look back at the state of the Labour party when he took over to where it is now, he has done a good job. I think that is much to do with Tory mess ups than anything he has done. I would like him to explain what he means by being closer to the EU but not rejoining the single market or customs union. Does it mean just being nicer which does not change any existing rules or does it mean renegotiating the trade deal with the EU. I suspect he will make some sort of commitment to never diverge from EU standards but that is just a guess on my part. Sunak is a new challenge for him but he has a sizeable lead I don't see anything other than a Labour win at the next GE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak vs Starmer hmmm Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Starmer - a person who had the audacity to buy a bit of land behind his Mum’s house so she could open a donkey sanctuary. Is Sunak doing a good job? We will see. The bar was set so low by Johnson and Truss that pretty much anyone else would look good/effective (apart from Matt Hancock - Sunak must be loving the timing of that leak after his gaff over NI being in such an amazing position with unfettered access to both the UK and EU markets). Starmer is dull dull dull and possibly someone who breaks pledges. We will see! Sunak has created a quiet time, he has got on with his job and managed to bring a calm. It is not necessarily what he is doing, it is how has gone about it. " Yep I agree with that. We needed less drama and less scandal (let’s face it, it couldn’t have gotten any worse). However, the outcomes are what ultimately matters! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him? I'm still undecided about him. If you look back at the state of the Labour party when he took over to where it is now, he has done a good job. I think that is much to do with Tory mess ups than anything he has done. I would like him to explain what he means by being closer to the EU but not rejoining the single market or customs union. Does it mean just being nicer which does not change any existing rules or does it mean renegotiating the trade deal with the EU. I suspect he will make some sort of commitment to never diverge from EU standards but that is just a guess on my part. Sunak is a new challenge for him but he has a sizeable lead I don't see anything other than a Labour win at the next GE" I've been thinking along the same routes as you in that I didn't see any way the Tories could win the next GE, I'm not so sure now that Sunak seems to at least slowed down the nonsense. I still drink Labour will win but it may be closet than I imagined | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife?" Do a bit of research if you are really interested. Google works great. Try... “aksharta murthy furlough” “aksharta murthy non dom” (you will argue “not set by Sunak” but he also made no attempt to change the rules and she certainly benefitted) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My impression is Starmer seems dull. But give me dull any day over figures like the exciting but awful Johnson. Starmer also seems to be trying to shift the party more from the left to the centre. Electorally, that makes sense. But he'll lose a bunch of lefties who want lefty policies. Then there's stuff like his Brexit stance of making it work. And not supporting strikers. Guaranteed to piss off some people who want to rejoin and people who want to see Labour supporting strikers. But, I assume, again this is him going for the centre ground. + it feels like he's trying to avoid giving ammo to the right wing papers. To sum up, I think he's trying to walk a tightrope. If he's too lefty, the Tory press will try to crucify him & Tory voters will hate him. If he's too right, old school lefties will hate him for not standing for their values. " Ah the joys of being a centrist. Everyone hates us LOL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak." "Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife?" "Do a bit of research if you are really interested. Google works great. Try... “aksharta murthy furlough”" That brings up stories that a gym, which Ms Murthy is a director of, claimed £100,000 in furlough after it had to close during lockdown. You're not really going to claim that Sunak set the rules for furlough, specifically to help out his wife's company? Besides, the company got the benefit, not Ms Murthy. She wasn't paid a penny of furlough. "“aksharta murthy non dom” (you will argue “not set by Sunak” but he also made no attempt to change the rules and she certainly benefitted)" I am going to say 'not set by Sunak', because you originally said that she benefited from "Govt policy being set by Sunak". You don't even believe it yourself. I look forward to you arguing that Kier Starmer should abolish child benefit when he gets into power. We wouldn't want his family benefiting from policy that he is in charge of, would we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just realised I didn't answer my own question from the start lol. Great or shit? I dunno. Time will tell, I guess." Judging from the replies so far, it seems that we can rule out 'great'. Are there any other options? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just realised I didn't answer my own question from the start lol. Great or shit? I dunno. Time will tell, I guess." How about a Great Shite.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife? Do a bit of research if you are really interested. Google works great. Try... “aksharta murthy furlough” That brings up stories that a gym, which Ms Murthy is a director of, claimed £100,000 in furlough after it had to close during lockdown. You're not really going to claim that Sunak set the rules for furlough, specifically to help out his wife's company? Besides, the company got the benefit, not Ms Murthy. She wasn't paid a penny of furlough. “aksharta murthy non dom” (you will argue “not set by Sunak” but he also made no attempt to change the rules and she certainly benefitted) I am going to say 'not set by Sunak', because you originally said that she benefited from "Govt policy being set by Sunak". You don't even believe it yourself. I look forward to you arguing that Kier Starmer should abolish child benefit when he gets into power. We wouldn't want his family benefiting from policy that he is in charge of, would we." Dig deeper. Also when companies are in trouble they turn to shareholders to provide funds. Someone whose personal wealth is around £700m couldn’t cover the £100k to keep staff employed? No instead she let British taxpayers pick up the bill (and she was not paying tax in the UK or anywhere in fact). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just realised I didn't answer my own question from the start lol. Great or shit? I dunno. Time will tell, I guess. Judging from the replies so far, it seems that we can rule out 'great'. Are there any other options?" Yes, how about 'grate' He does tend to grate on me, I find him slippery. He seems to only have the answers after the event, hence the excellent nickname Capt Hindsight! Not a patch on pre-Iraq Blair but he thinks he is. Labour did really well from 97 to 03 but there's a sense now that Labour are not winning with new ideas, but that the Tories are gifting it to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak." "Which policy was set by Sunak, and resulted in a benefit to his wife?" "Do a bit of research if you are really interested. Google works great. Try... “aksharta murthy furlough”" "That brings up stories that a gym, which Ms Murthy is a director of, claimed £100,000 in furlough after it had to close during lockdown. You're not really going to claim that Sunak set the rules for furlough, specifically to help out his wife's company? Besides, the company got the benefit, not Ms Murthy. She wasn't paid a penny of furlough." "“aksharta murthy non dom” (you will argue “not set by Sunak” but he also made no attempt to change the rules and she certainly benefitted)" "I am going to say 'not set by Sunak', because you originally said that she benefited from "Govt policy being set by Sunak". You don't even believe it yourself. I look forward to you arguing that Kier Starmer should abolish child benefit when he gets into power. We wouldn't want his family benefiting from policy that he is in charge of, would we." "Dig deeper. Also when companies are in trouble they turn to shareholders to provide funds." They can do that, but why would any shareholder put more of their own money at risk when there's free money available from the government? "Someone whose personal wealth is around £700m couldn’t cover the £100k to keep staff employed?" No she couldn't. It's not her company, she's just one of the directors. If she lent money to the company, that would create a company debt. Getting the company into debt is a common technique used in takeovers, where you demand repayment knowing that the company doesn't have the cash, then take the whole company when it defaults. If I were another shareholder of that gym, I would not allow her to put in money that might allow her to steal the whole company away. Especially not when there's a no-risk alternative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(and she was not paying tax in the UK or anywhere in fact)." I forgot this bit. Ms Murthy does, and did, pay tax in India. Maybe not all that you would like, due to some of the company structures, but she does pay tax there. She also pays tax on all of her UK income, including the dividends that she receives from that gym. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(and she was not paying tax in the UK or anywhere in fact). I forgot this bit. Ms Murthy does, and did, pay tax in India. Maybe not all that you would like, due to some of the company structures, but she does pay tax there. She also pays tax on all of her UK income, including the dividends that she receives from that gym." Not on her Infosys shares she doesn’t. That represents the bulk of her wealth and the shares are held offshore in Mauritius a tax haven. So no tax in India or UK! As to your other post... Look into those companies and how they took out govt backed bounceback loans (Sunak policy remember). Then liquidated before defaulting and having to start paying back. Luckily the nice tax payer picked up the tab! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(and she was not paying tax in the UK or anywhere in fact). I forgot this bit. Ms Murthy does, and did, pay tax in India. Maybe not all that you would like, due to some of the company structures, but she does pay tax there. She also pays tax on all of her UK income, including the dividends that she receives from that gym. Not on her Infosys shares she doesn’t. That represents the bulk of her wealth and the shares are held offshore in Mauritius a tax haven. So no tax in India or UK! As to your other post... Look into those companies and how they took out govt backed bounceback loans (Sunak policy remember). Then liquidated before defaulting and having to start paying back. Luckily the nice tax payer picked up the tab!" Oh and... "They can do that, but why would any shareholder put more of their own money at risk when there's free money available from the government?" Supports my OP. She benefitted from govt policy put in place by her husband. Thanks for confirming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shit, just like what we have now." I think, he thinks, he's offering a slightly less shit, slightly less self serving option to what we have now. It's all academic anyway as I don't see any change in the ruling party any time soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun " Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! "Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! "Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! "Completely agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! "What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His party will implode within 18-24 months in power….. they are a very divided party but sensibly, just keeping quiet until the GE. Just remember, a lot of the current problems we have are as a result of covid/lockdowns. Labour wanted harder and longer lockdowns. Let us not forget that. And no, I am not a conservative voter…. I have no political allegiance " "a lot of the current problems we have are as a result of covid/lockdowns" This is not a fact. It is just a statement that you are making. Would higher rates of death and long COVID be a more or less significant problem than lockdowns? Every other country in the G7 has returned to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity. If you cannot identify that our problem is unique then you are deliberately looking the other way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we've had a thread on Starmer as such. Any views on him?" I don't think that the title is helpful. It immediately polarises the "discussion". Starmer appears to me to have some intent to try and improve the circumstances of the majority of the population, particularly the less well of with some form of direct intervention rather than a blind trust in the magical thinking of trickle down economics. I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative. Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems. However, other than the political slipperiness, I have the impression that he demonstrates significantly more personal integrity than any senior Conservative figure and at the very least the endemic corruption of the current party of power will be removed and not allowed to reassert itself under his leadership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving? "I certainly hope not but until they are in office we won't know for certain. I suppose the best we can do is make a best guess on any evidence available closer to the time. Hopefully by then they will set out their plans in more detail so we know that they are aiming to be more than slightly better. If the NI deal goes through and it proves to work better than the protocol as opposed to just spin then I think Sunak will see a slight bounce in the polls. However Sunak will need quite a few bounces to even get close and I'm not sure there is time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree"There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
I certainly hope not but until they are in office we won't know for certain. I suppose the best we can do is make a best guess on any evidence available closer to the time. Hopefully by then they will set out their plans in more detail so we know that they are aiming to be more than slightly better. If the NI deal goes through and it proves to work better than the protocol as opposed to just spin then I think Sunak will see a slight bounce in the polls. However Sunak will need quite a few bounces to even get close and I'm not sure there is time. "It would be hard to imagine any party to be more self serving and corrupt in government (in the UK). I am interested in why people think Labour would be worse. I'm sure Starmer will present a much better than "slightly better", but I'm sceptical that he offers any real meaningful change. Personally, I don't see Labour getting elected in the short to medium term. We've seen the same pattern too many times. Everyone gets hopeful that change is coming, and assume that the electorate will have had enough of the constant sleaze, self serving Tories, corruption, incompetence etc. But nothing ever materialises. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun " Where abouts are you moving to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!! "Why is the Sue Gray report ‘a taste of the corruption awaiting us’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak vs Starmer hmmm Sunak - a person with questionable tax affairs whose wife personally benefitted from Govt policy being set by Sunak. Starmer - a person who had the audacity to buy a bit of land behind his Mum’s house so she could open a donkey sanctuary. Is Sunak doing a good job? We will see. The bar was set so low by Johnson and Truss that pretty much anyone else would look good/effective (apart from Matt Hancock - Sunak must be loving the timing of that leak after his gaff over NI being in such an amazing position with unfettered access to both the UK and EU markets). Starmer is dull dull dull and possibly someone who breaks pledges. We will see!" DONKEY SANCTUARY,,  is that for all the old labour mp's who are no longer in parliament  wondered where he was going to dispose of corbin etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?"Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving? "Yes. They always are. See the Labour examples I have given more than once elsewhere on here regarding their period of governance from 1997 to 2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?"Her surname is Gray, by the way. Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour. Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'. Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now. The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it. I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall. Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister. I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality. I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Why is the Sue Gray report ‘a taste of the corruption awaiting us’? "Read what I said more carefully! I said the Sue Gray appointment is ‘a taste of the corruption awaiting us'! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
I certainly hope not but until they are in office we won't know for certain. I suppose the best we can do is make a best guess on any evidence available closer to the time. Hopefully by then they will set out their plans in more detail so we know that they are aiming to be more than slightly better. If the NI deal goes through and it proves to work better than the protocol as opposed to just spin then I think Sunak will see a slight bounce in the polls. However Sunak will need quite a few bounces to even get close and I'm not sure there is time.
It would be hard to imagine any party to be more self serving and corrupt in government (in the UK). I am interested in why people think Labour would be worse.
I'm sure Starmer will present a much better than "slightly better", but I'm sceptical that he offers any real meaningful change.
Personally, I don't see Labour getting elected in the short to medium term. We've seen the same pattern too many times. Everyone gets hopeful that change is coming, and assume that the electorate will have had enough of the constant sleaze, self serving Tories, corruption, incompetence etc. But nothing ever materialises. "So 1997 to 2010 never happened then? What are you talking about?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree
There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems."And you haven't been? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Why is the Sue Gray report ‘a taste of the corruption awaiting us’?
Read what I said more carefully! I said the Sue Gray appointment is ‘a taste of the corruption awaiting us'! "Smacks of common sense more like. Judging by the Matt Hancock WhatsApp messages flying around the cabinet during the pandemic, wouldn’t you want to go tell your employees to go fuck themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
I certainly hope not but until they are in office we won't know for certain. I suppose the best we can do is make a best guess on any evidence available closer to the time. Hopefully by then they will set out their plans in more detail so we know that they are aiming to be more than slightly better. If the NI deal goes through and it proves to work better than the protocol as opposed to just spin then I think Sunak will see a slight bounce in the polls. However Sunak will need quite a few bounces to even get close and I'm not sure there is time.
It would be hard to imagine any party to be more self serving and corrupt in government (in the UK). I am interested in why people think Labour would be worse.
I'm sure Starmer will present a much better than "slightly better", but I'm sceptical that he offers any real meaningful change.
Personally, I don't see Labour getting elected in the short to medium term. We've seen the same pattern too many times. Everyone gets hopeful that change is coming, and assume that the electorate will have had enough of the constant sleaze, self serving Tories, corruption, incompetence etc. But nothing ever materialises. "I would hope and expect him to be better but until he is in office for a bit we just don't know. I recall when Boris was PM the saying often on here was that absolutely anyone would be better than Boris. Up steps Liz Truss to muddy those waters. I also hope he does provide more than a slightly less shit option for everyone but so far I'm still waiting for it to materialise. I disagree on your line about Labour not going to win the next GE but respect your view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
I certainly hope not but until they are in office we won't know for certain. I suppose the best we can do is make a best guess on any evidence available closer to the time. Hopefully by then they will set out their plans in more detail so we know that they are aiming to be more than slightly better. If the NI deal goes through and it proves to work better than the protocol as opposed to just spin then I think Sunak will see a slight bounce in the polls. However Sunak will need quite a few bounces to even get close and I'm not sure there is time. "I'm sure there is time. Similar 'crushing' polls in 1990 and 1991 saw Labour lead by +20 points. John Major's Conservatives won in May 1992 with a majority of around 20, as I recall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it? "Not at all. I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role. Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment? Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities? Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA). Do you actually have any valid point to make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?"Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid. And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery. "Still gotta admit, it’s the best two finger gesture to her previous employees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
Still gotta admit, it’s the best two finger gesture to her previous employers." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery. "It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic. It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast. I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not? You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA."I refer you to my previous posts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts "Which remain devoid of pertinent content. Carry on, Pat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat."Devoid to you, as a lefty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
"The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt". This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty"."The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative. Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative" This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?
Her surname is Gray, by the way.
Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour.
Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'.
Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now.
The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it.
I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall.
Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister.
I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality.
I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round.
"Interesting. So you are questioning her impartiality when she was the Senior Civil Servant in charge of the investigation. And also saying people in those positions cannot choose future positions if they have political requirements? Nadine Dorries: 2022: "Sue Gray is independent, is known to be independent” 2023: "There is huge doubt over Sue Gray and what she did when she was writing that report” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?
Her surname is Gray, by the way.
Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour.
Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'.
Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now.
The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it.
I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall.
Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister.
I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality.
I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round.
Interesting. So you are questioning her impartiality when she was the Senior Civil Servant in charge of the investigation. And also saying people in those positions cannot choose future positions if they have political requirements?
Nadine Dorries:
2022: "Sue Gray is independent, is known to be independent”
2023: "There is huge doubt over Sue Gray and what she did when she was writing that report”"Absolutely I am! And of course, Nadine has a different view now she knows Starmer has headhunted ardent Labour supporter Gray. As ever, I am not condemning until there's been an inquiry, merely questioning her impartiality. I am allowed to do that, am I? You have done exactly the same when it's been the other way around. Or do you really not see that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?
Her surname is Gray, by the way.
Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour.
Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'.
Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now.
The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it.
I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall.
Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister.
I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality.
I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round.
Interesting. So you are questioning her impartiality when she was the Senior Civil Servant in charge of the investigation. And also saying people in those positions cannot choose future positions if they have political requirements?
Nadine Dorries:
2022: "Sue Gray is independent, is known to be independent”
2023: "There is huge doubt over Sue Gray and what she did when she was writing that report”"Also missing the point. No matter how impartial Sue GrAy was in carrying out her duties in leading the investigation, knowing how Whitehall works, she would have been under immense pressure from SpAds and Ministers to “provide the right kind of findings”. As she didn’t, she will have made some powerful enemies that will have made her position untenable. They probably pushed her into the arms of the Labour Party. Who better to be Chief of Staff and ensure the future propriety of the Labour Party than the person who investigated the impropriety of the government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?
Her surname is Gray, by the way.
Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour.
Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'.
Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now.
The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it.
I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall.
Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister.
I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality.
I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round.
Interesting. So you are questioning her impartiality when she was the Senior Civil Servant in charge of the investigation. And also saying people in those positions cannot choose future positions if they have political requirements?
Nadine Dorries:
2022: "Sue Gray is independent, is known to be independent”
2023: "There is huge doubt over Sue Gray and what she did when she was writing that report”
Also missing the point. No matter how impartial Sue GrAy was in carrying out her duties in leading the investigation, knowing how Whitehall works, she would have been under immense pressure from SpAds and Ministers to “provide the right kind of findings”. As she didn’t, she will have made some powerful enemies that will have made her position untenable. They probably pushed her into the arms of the Labour Party.
Who better to be Chief of Staff and ensure the future propriety of the Labour Party than the person who investigated the impropriety of the government? "Exactly. So let's have an inquiry and get dates. How long has she been a Labour party member? Is she one at all? When did Gray and Starmer first message about this position? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Explain why Sue Grey’s appointment is corruption would you?
Her surname is Gray, by the way.
Sue Gray’s appointment is bad for public life and bad for Labour.
Firstly, Captain Hindsight has dodged questions about when Labour first approached partygate investigator Sue Gray with the offer of a senior role. Why? It's like Beergate, when they dodged questions about Angrier Rayner's presence there (how could they have forgotten her vocal presence there? ), then denied it, before finally confirming it and blaming an 'admin error'.
Parliament’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is looking at the proposed appointment right now.
The impartiality of the civil service is a cornerstone of our constitution and nothing should be allowed to compromise it. This will compromise it.
I've no doubt it's lonely at the top and you need allies around you. But that is precisely why senior civil servants should not be considered for a job in which political reliability is at a premium. That's particularly true of Mrs Gray who has occupied some of the most sensitive roles in Whitehall.
Due to her experience in adjudicating matters of governmental propriety, she was appointed to lead the inquiry into Partygate — the outcome of which brought down a serving prime minister.
I believe there should generally be Government inquiry into which roles senior civil servants should and shouldn’t be allowed to move on to. That inquiry should begin asap, not be headed by Sue Gray now she has revealed her true, ardent political colours and run whatever the decision of the watchdog now looking at this grotesque appointment as we speak. If she planned this move while investigating Partygate, that would be hugely damaging to any concept of impartiality.
I think if it walks and talks like corrupt, it probably is. I can imagine your outrage if this was the other way round.
Interesting. So you are questioning her impartiality when she was the Senior Civil Servant in charge of the investigation. And also saying people in those positions cannot choose future positions if they have political requirements?
Nadine Dorries:
2022: "Sue Gray is independent, is known to be independent”
2023: "There is huge doubt over Sue Gray and what she did when she was writing that report”
Also missing the point. No matter how impartial Sue GrAy was in carrying out her duties in leading the investigation, knowing how Whitehall works, she would have been under immense pressure from SpAds and Ministers to “provide the right kind of findings”. As she didn’t, she will have made some powerful enemies that will have made her position untenable. They probably pushed her into the arms of the Labour Party.
Who better to be Chief of Staff and ensure the future propriety of the Labour Party than the person who investigated the impropriety of the government?
Exactly. So let's have an inquiry and get dates. How long has she been a Labour party member? Is she one at all? When did Gray and Starmer first message about this position? "I agree although that does then open up questions about everyone working in senior positions in the Civil Service doesn’t it? The Civil Service Code requires impartiality and a commitment to serve the government of the day. However, they are still citizens of the UK with a right to vote and therefore hold personal political views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree
There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems.
And you haven't been? "I don't think that much of Starmer, actually. Some real indoctrination there... But I don't trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree
There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems.
And you haven't been?
I don't think that much of Starmer, actually. Some real indoctrination there...
But I don't trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag."You're really going to have a better memory than that! Have a look at the thread 'Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’ Guess what? In it you trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag. The nickname is 'Pat' I leave you to confirm who you regard as 'some rag' but it's pretty Easy to work out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty"."My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time. It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been. I was specific about two matters. Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded. Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse. Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm surprised all this talk about Sue Gray and not once has her son been mentioned "Well aware of Liam Conlon - only adds to the calls for a full inquiry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?"Wriggling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling. "You certainly are. Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post. Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?"Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple. Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple.
Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down.
"Still no direct answer from you as to why the appointment of Sue Gray constitutes corruption then. Unsurprising. My answers were direct and as complete as is reasonable when requested. Engaging fully. Also more paranoid nonsense about being cancelled from you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you lol he obsessed with anyone who has a different view
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple.
Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree
There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems.
And you haven't been?
I don't think that much of Starmer, actually. Some real indoctrination there...
But I don't trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag.
You're really going to have a better memory than that!
Have a look at the thread 'Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’
Guess what? In it you trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag.
The nickname is 'Pat'
I leave you to confirm who you regard as 'some rag' but it's pretty Easy to work out
"Which politician is Pat? And which tabloid did I read it in? You're all over the place tonight, aren't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The story is Case kyboshed an effective promotion signalling her career in the CS was over. Having seem the shit show of the Tory party maybe she realised that she didn't want to work for that side of the house. It's interesting how a well-praised membbr of the CS is now being tested with suspicion. If she has always been a staunch labour supporter then she's done very well in hiding her leaning (presumably by being impartisl at work) so it's odd to suddenly assume she can't manage the conflict right at the end ... " Oh I hadn't heard that snippet about Case. That's a name that keeps popping up lately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The story is Case kyboshed an effective promotion signalling her career in the CS was over. Having seem the shit show of the Tory party maybe she realised that she didn't want to work for that side of the house. It's interesting how a well-praised membbr of the CS is now being tested with suspicion. If she has always been a staunch labour supporter then she's done very well in hiding her leaning (presumably by being impartisl at work) so it's odd to suddenly assume she can't manage the conflict right at the end ... Oh I hadn't heard that snippet about Case. That's a name that keeps popping up lately." irrc he is said to be somewhat mentioned in the report. That he has any say over sue Gray's career is an actual conflict. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The story is Case kyboshed an effective promotion signalling her career in the CS was over. Having seem the shit show of the Tory party maybe she realised that she didn't want to work for that side of the house. It's interesting how a well-praised membbr of the CS is now being tested with suspicion. If she has always been a staunch labour supporter then she's done very well in hiding her leaning (presumably by being impartisl at work) so it's odd to suddenly assume she can't manage the conflict right at the end ... Oh I hadn't heard that snippet about Case. That's a name that keeps popping up lately.irrc he is said to be somewhat mentioned in the report. That he has any say over sue Gray's career is an actual conflict. " Especially as she only carried out the investigation because Case has to recuse himself as he was implicated. If true. I have not seen anything to indicate this piece of information though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
Yes. They always are. See the Labour examples I have given more than once elsewhere on here regarding their period of governance from 1997 to 2010. "Honestly don't have time to try to find your example. But when was there ever this level of self serving and corruption in government here? Definitely not 97-2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple.
Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down.
Still no direct answer from you as to why the appointment of Sue Gray constitutes corruption then. Unsurprising.
My answers were direct and as complete as is reasonable when requested. Engaging fully.
Also more paranoid nonsense about being cancelled from you."Your answers were the ones you wanted to give, no direct answers. No numericals. As regards corruption, my sentiment was a broad expression of the outrage many people, including Labourites, feel at this appointment. There should be a full inquiry, possibly more than Acoba looking at it. How long has this most senior civil servant, a Downing Street veteran trusted with top Tories’ intimate secrets, been chatting to Starmer about running Labour’s campaign to oust the very Government she has been working for? Many Tories are currently being judged on emails and WhatsApps — what would hers and his reveal? The public should be told. Starmer concedes they have known and liked each other for years — and her devotion to Labour is obviously not a recent fad. This scandal fuels the already massive suspicion that our elected Government, for all its errors, has also been stitched up by a staunchly left-wing civil service itching to work for Labour. It's a dreadful look. Lefties on here always claim that anti-Tory Whitehall bias is merely right-wing paranoia. Gray and Starmer seem to have blown that defence to bits. But let's see what Acoba say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is probably just about ok as a leader of the opposition in an extremely weak and fractured Labour Party. The problem with a General Election win for him is that it will expose the lack of strength in depth that they could call upon in the parliamentary party to form a functioning cabinet. I would imagine most of the respondents to this thread would be able to name more members of Blair’s first cabinet than name potential members of a Starmer one. His policies are wishy washy and have the potential to be torn to bits in a TV debate. I think he has a certain degree of lawyer stylee but as of yet all his appearances at PMQs and on TV have been geared towards reactionary criticism of government actions rather than constructive appraisals of how things could have been handled (realistically) differently. In short, I doubt he will be a leader for the ages. " What an excellent, accurate post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
Yes. They always are. See the Labour examples I have given more than once elsewhere on here regarding their period of governance from 1997 to 2010.
Honestly don't have time to try to find your example. But when was there ever this level of self serving and corruption in government here? Definitely not 97-2010."It was arguably worse. It's just that at first it brought fascination and admiration as we'd never seen sleaze like it. If you think shady bungs from businessmen, lying lobbyists, ministers on the make, ministers forced to resign, expenses fiddled and Loans for Lordships only arrived in 2015, think again! And long before Matt Hancock, there was Prescott. And his diary secretary. Their two year fling began at an office party. Never forget £1m from ardent Labourite Bernie Eccleston, if Formula 1 could be exempted from the tobacco advertising ban. It was returned. As you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Completely agree
There's a shocker. You've been indoctrinated pretty thoroughly, it seems.
And you haven't been?
I don't think that much of Starmer, actually. Some real indoctrination there...
But I don't trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag.
You're really going to have a better memory than that!
Have a look at the thread 'Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’
Guess what? In it you trot out stupid nicknames after parroting them from some rag.
The nickname is 'Pat'
I leave you to confirm who you regard as 'some rag' but it's pretty Easy to work out
Which politician is Pat? And which tabloid did I read it in? You're all over the place tonight, aren't you?"I'm fine, not sure about you. You obviously didn't look at the thread 'Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’ If you had have done, you wouldn't have posted the gibberish above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This scandal fuels the already massive suspicion that our elected Government, for all its errors, has also been stitched up by a staunchly left-wing civil service itching to work for Labour. It's a dreadful look. Lefties on here always claim that anti-Tory Whitehall bias is merely right-wing paranoia." Who is it that holds this “massive suspicion”? That does sound like paranoid hyperbole to me, sorry! First of all I take it you mean the decision makers, ie the Permanent Secretaries and Executive Directors? You’d be surprised if you looked into their backgrounds and educational history. Rich/upper middle class and privately educated people dominate these positions. If there is any truth to a general feeling of “we don’t like working for this government” it won’t be because of the colour of the tie they wear, it will because of the sheer incompetence, blatant self enriching thievery, and utter arrogance that has been on display since Johnson took office. Oh and the ongoing slagging off by Ministers of the Civil Service “blob” and exponential increase in scandals. The CS are probably worn out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
Do you guys think labour would be even more corrupt and self serving?
Yes. They always are. See the Labour examples I have given more than once elsewhere on here regarding their period of governance from 1997 to 2010.
Honestly don't have time to try to find your example. But when was there ever this level of self serving and corruption in government here? Definitely not 97-2010.
It was arguably worse. It's just that at first it brought fascination and admiration as we'd never seen sleaze like it. If you think shady bungs from businessmen, lying lobbyists, ministers on the make, ministers forced to resign, expenses fiddled and Loans for Lordships only arrived in 2015, think again!
And long before Matt Hancock, there was Prescott. And his diary secretary. Their two year fling began at an office party.
Never forget £1m from ardent Labourite Bernie Eccleston, if Formula 1 could be exempted from the tobacco advertising ban. It was returned. As you do. "£1 million! Imagine if it was such low levels and small value corruption now. I'm by no means saying that the last labour government didn't have problems. Clearly they did. Cough Iraq war cough. But to say they're as corrupt as the current incumbents is just ridiculous. I would say they the country deserves better than the current government. And Starmer doesn't offer enough of an alternative aside from being potentially less self serving and corrupt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Sue Grey job offer shows poor judgement by KS. I brings into question the independence of her report & gives the Torys & BJ supporters ammunition to dismiss its findings. I am certain there are plenty of long term labor supporters who could do the job but perhaps they are not right wing enough for KS? " I agree it is poor judgement on the part of SKS for the reasons you state. Why give the Tories ammunition? They already hanged themselves so it has been an open goal. However, the due process in the Civil Service investigation and review stages simply means if the evidence of wrong doing was there then all the report did was, well, report it! Any bias (if it existed) would not make it through the review cycle. Tories acting like Sue Gray has been some long term leftie sleeper agent is very silly indeed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Sue Grey job offer shows poor judgement by KS. I brings into question the independence of her report & gives the Torys & BJ supporters ammunition to dismiss its findings. I am certain there are plenty of long term labor supporters who could do the job but perhaps they are not right wing enough for KS? I agree it is poor judgement on the part of SKS for the reasons you state. Why give the Tories ammunition? They already hanged themselves so it has been an open goal. However, the due process in the Civil Service investigation and review stages simply means if the evidence of wrong doing was there then all the report did was, well, report it! Any bias (if it existed) would not make it through the review cycle. Tories acting like Sue Gray has been some long term leftie sleeper agent is very silly indeed." Of course they want to discredit her, so Boris gets away, even though he is guilty as charged. Kick the dick out of conservative parliamentary party I say, then the tories can drain the extremists out of their party also. Starmer did it with Corbyn, Sunak should do it with Johnson. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Sue Grey job offer shows poor judgement by KS. I brings into question the independence of her report & gives the Torys & BJ supporters ammunition to dismiss its findings. I am certain there are plenty of long term labor supporters who could do the job but perhaps they are not right wing enough for KS? " Au contraire. I think it demonstrates quite a gutsy decision. Her report was highly critical of the Tory government. It makes perfect sense to have her oversee the Labour party. I should imagine any party would be delighted to have such an experienced and capable civil servant oversee things, surely ? It's when people don't want to hire her that is a concern, not when they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know why the so many of party members who’ve been expelled for antisemitism are Jewish. All from the left of the party." Because they've possibly made anti-Semitic remarks and thus been flagged and reported as anti-Semitic ? Of course, we'd need to see the report on said individual to see if the expulsion was warranted, but one would assume there is a panel that have done that already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know why the so many of party members who’ve been expelled for antisemitism are Jewish. All from the left of the party. Because they've possibly made anti-Semitic remarks and thus been flagged and reported as anti-Semitic ? Of course, we'd need to see the report on said individual to see if the expulsion was warranted, but one would assume there is a panel that have done that already." The problem is the definition of antisemitism. Criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Literally illogical nonsense IMHO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Sue Grey job offer shows poor judgement by KS. I brings into question the independence of her report & gives the Torys & BJ supporters ammunition to dismiss its findings. I am certain there are plenty of long term labor supporters who could do the job but perhaps they are not right wing enough for KS? I agree it is poor judgement on the part of SKS for the reasons you state. Why give the Tories ammunition? They already hanged themselves so it has been an open goal. However, the due process in the Civil Service investigation and review stages simply means if the evidence of wrong doing was there then all the report did was, well, report it! Any bias (if it existed) would not make it through the review cycle. Tories acting like Sue Gray has been some long term leftie sleeper agent is very silly indeed. Of course they want to discredit her, so Boris gets away, even though he is guilty as charged. Kick the dick out of conservative parliamentary party I say, then the tories can drain the extremists out of their party also. Starmer did it with Corbyn, Sunak should do it with Johnson. ex party leaders are often critical of the present administration. I think that is quite healthy & trying to silence ex leaders shows a lack of security & is not democratic. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the saying goes, best to stick to the devil you know then the devil you don't know and Sir Keir Starmer is a devil you don't know so my verdict = shit" Einstein said the definition of madness is repeating the same action again and again and expecting a different outcome. Time for change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the saying goes, best to stick to the devil you know then the devil you don't know and Sir Keir Starmer is a devil you don't know so my verdict = shit" I'd suggest we know starmer better than sunak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say give Sunak another few months as his only been PM since October and then decide from there but lets be real for one second, don't expect Labour to be any better" Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say give Sunak another few months as his only been PM since October and then decide from there but lets be real for one second, don't expect Labour to be any better" why? That suggests either sunak is pinnacle PM or they are all the same (I'm which case better the devil you know makes no sense) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple.
Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down.
Still no direct answer from you as to why the appointment of Sue Gray constitutes corruption then. Unsurprising.
My answers were direct and as complete as is reasonable when requested. Engaging fully.
Also more paranoid nonsense about being cancelled from you.
Your answers were the ones you wanted to give, no direct answers. No numericals.
As regards corruption, my sentiment was a broad expression of the outrage many people, including Labourites, feel at this appointment.
There should be a full inquiry, possibly more than Acoba looking at it. How long has this most senior civil servant, a Downing Street veteran trusted with top Tories’ intimate secrets, been chatting to Starmer about running Labour’s campaign to oust the very Government she has been working for? Many Tories are currently being judged on emails and WhatsApps — what would hers and his reveal? The public should be told. Starmer concedes they have known and liked each other for years — and her devotion to Labour is obviously not a recent fad.
This scandal fuels the already massive suspicion that our elected Government, for all its errors, has also been stitched up by a staunchly left-wing civil service itching to work for Labour. It's a dreadful look.
Lefties on here always claim that anti-Tory Whitehall bias is merely right-wing paranoia.
Gray and Starmer seem to have blown that defence to bits. But let's see what Acoba say.
"Everyone can see what you have and have not written. Also what I have. As you are capable of a considerable level of self-delusion and double-think, there's not much point in expecting you to actually provide a coherent argument. So, once again confecting outrage. You still have no answer for why "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us". You clearly don't even understand the process of any senior service appointment after they leave. ACOBA rules on the period that anyone has to wait before they start a new job. Investigations are undertaken if there is a reason for them. There is no reason. You can't even provide one. Nobody can. The belief that the abject failure of the last decade of Tory rule is down to some kind of conspiracy is laughable. It follows all of this party's thinking that nothing is their responsibility. It is not that anything they do is wrong. It's all so eone else's fault. That's all you have now, it seems. Failure is not failure. It's just been sabotaged. For over a decade. The only genuine concern is that one year after the report that there may be an appearance of bias, without any indication of anything of the sort. Yes, Boris was responsible for his own removal after years of self-serving lies and incompetence. Believing that one report brought him down is naive in itself. Keep clutching at your straws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the saying goes, best to stick to the devil you know then the devil you don't know and Sir Keir Starmer is a devil you don't know so my verdict = shit" By that logic, you never change any Government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say give Sunak another few months as his only been PM since October and then decide from there but lets be real for one second, don't expect Labour to be any better" Why? It's the same party with the same policies. If not, there should be a general election. The senior ministers are all the same and the MPs all supported the failed policies that exist and the cause of the infighting that has brought us to where we are. Even now with Boris once more trying to make a comeback. Marginally renegotiating one aspect of one trade deal is not going to change this nor solve the corruption that he presided over in the Treasury. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories" they are both knowns then.
I'd urge anyone with this pov to spoilt their paper. Don't vote for any devils. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - " I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories" You think that people are stupid? Why are there only two choices in your mind? You've limited yourself to two options and said that we shouldn't try anything else. The crap we have is fine. That is the summary. Correct? If not, then what do youean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories" They aren’t but keep telling yourself that. The Tories moved to the right. Starmer has also moved to the right to try and claim the centre ground. So too far to the right for most staunch socialists but in a more comfortable position for moderates and swing voters. It feels like he oscillates between centre-left and centre-right depending on the policy. My concern is trying to be all things to all people. Then again, as a centrist myself, we often get accused of fence sitting and being wishy washy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the saying goes, best to stick to the devil you know then the devil you don't know and Sir Keir Starmer is a devil you don't know so my verdict = shit" I agree that a large portion of the electorate have been conditioned to believe that the current government is what British people deserve, and that this is as good as it gets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories" Do you think Labour would be as blatantly corrupt and self serving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader?" He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing." I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories They aren’t but keep telling yourself that. The Tories moved to the right. Starmer has also moved to the right to try and claim the centre ground. So too far to the right for most staunch socialists but in a more comfortable position for moderates and swing voters. It feels like he oscillates between centre-left and centre-right depending on the policy. My concern is trying to be all things to all people. Then again, as a centrist myself, we often get accused of fence sitting and being wishy washy "They are, if the Labour Party were investigated for Anti Semetism by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission(second party to do so after the BNP) then how are they better then the Tories who seem to be Anti Islamathobic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories" So, Corbyn is the same as Boris, etc etc ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories They aren’t but keep telling yourself that. The Tories moved to the right. Starmer has also moved to the right to try and claim the centre ground. So too far to the right for most staunch socialists but in a more comfortable position for moderates and swing voters. It feels like he oscillates between centre-left and centre-right depending on the policy. My concern is trying to be all things to all people. Then again, as a centrist myself, we often get accused of fence sitting and being wishy washy They are, if the Labour Party were investigated for Anti Semetism by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission(second party to do so after the BNP) then how are they better then the Tories who seem to be Anti Islamathobic"How are the tories ‘anti islamophobic’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson." Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories They aren’t but keep telling yourself that. The Tories moved to the right. Starmer has also moved to the right to try and claim the centre ground. So too far to the right for most staunch socialists but in a more comfortable position for moderates and swing voters. It feels like he oscillates between centre-left and centre-right depending on the policy. My concern is trying to be all things to all people. Then again, as a centrist myself, we often get accused of fence sitting and being wishy washy They are, if the Labour Party were investigated for Anti Semetism by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission(second party to do so after the BNP) then how are they better then the Tories who seem to be Anti Islamathobic"Are the Tories Islamaphobic? Remind me what the findings were in relation to Labour being accused of Anti-semitism and what actions were taken? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business." Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. " You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it." The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to not realize that Labour and Conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin, so even if we change goverment I gurantee you that we will get the same crap with Labour like we did with the Tories They aren’t but keep telling yourself that. The Tories moved to the right. Starmer has also moved to the right to try and claim the centre ground. So too far to the right for most staunch socialists but in a more comfortable position for moderates and swing voters. It feels like he oscillates between centre-left and centre-right depending on the policy. My concern is trying to be all things to all people. Then again, as a centrist myself, we often get accused of fence sitting and being wishy washy They are, if the Labour Party were investigated for Anti Semetism by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission(second party to do so after the BNP) then how are they better then the Tories who seem to be Anti Islamathobic
Are the Tories Islamaphobic? Remind me what the findings were in relation to Labour being accused of Anti-semitism and what actions were taken?"well certain Tories MPs have made Islamphobic comments before but yeah their investigation found that the Labour Party had committed unlawful acts published in a report about their findings in regards to antisemetism including recommendations for change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman??" I don't find it straightforward anymore. Can you answer that question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer? You think it’s bad now just wait. House going on the market this summer. Luckily, I’m in the position to by a golden ticket. I look forward to watching the shitfest from my hacienda in the sun Good luck to you
The rest of us are in for a complete nightmare if Captain Hindsight and Angrier Rayner get in. The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us. They've not even won yet!!
What did Lord Frost do before he was given a peerage and became a Minister of State?
Deflection and /or whataboutery! But it's all OK when you do it?
Not at all.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for him to take on this role.
Why is unacceptable for Sue Gray to accept a political appointment?
Has there been any evidence to indicate that any activity that she has undertaken at any point in her career was at all influenced by her political affinities?
Her appointment will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA).
Do you actually have any valid point to make?
Yes, I've made them. Just because you look through a left leaning lens does not make my points invalid.
And whether you think it was perfectly acceptable for Frost to take on that role or not, you're still doing what you detest others doing - deflection and whataboutery.
It's certainly not deflection as it's directly relevant to the topic.
It's a deflection when it's not related or a decades old "comparison" that is nothing of the sort. As nobody at all of any political colour thought that there was any problem with Lord Frost's appointment after leaving the civil service. This is the first instance of this being raised as a problem, so it is an interesting and very relevant point of contrast.
I am clearly not looking through a "left leaning lens" because I think that both appointments were fine. Why do you think that they were not?
You are unable to give a reason as to why there is a problem with Sue Gray's appointment, especially as it will be reviewed by ACOBA.
I refer you to my previous posts
Which remain devoid of pertinent content.
Carry on, Pat.
Devoid to you, as a lefty.
The phrase: "The Sue Gray appointment is but a taste of the corruption awaiting us" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such an appointment "corrupt".
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
The phrase: "I am not especially impressed by any of the policies that I have seen so far, with some looking somewhat negative.
Particularly the tax on independent school fees and the pretence that Brexit isn't inherently really causing any problems" is empty as it provides absolutely no indication of what makes such policies as "looking somewhat negative"
This is true if read by a "lefty" or a "righty".
My sentiment was a broad expression of a range of policies and behaviours over an extended period of time.
It would take an extremely long time to be specific. Consequently I have not been.
I was specific about two matters.
Taxing independent school fees will lead to a significant shift of children to an already overstretched state sector which will somehow need to be staffed and funded.
Pretending Brexit is not causing any problems, just as the Conservative party has been doing, means that you do not address the very real consequences, so they just continue to become progressively worse.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Wriggling.
You certainly are.
Unable to reply directly, as I have. Normal behaviour on your part. You make it clearer with each post.
Why is the appointment of Sue Gray "a taste of corruption to come"?
Amnesia - I answered already. Try engaging like the Brighton couple.
Are you OK today.? You seem very obsessed with me, trotting the daft nickname out, forgetting what people say, deflecting, providing empty answers on school fees and Brexit, adding detail only when pushed, lots of whataboutery, trying to cancel views that don't mirror your own. Have a lie down.
Still no direct answer from you as to why the appointment of Sue Gray constitutes corruption then. Unsurprising.
My answers were direct and as complete as is reasonable when requested. Engaging fully.
Also more paranoid nonsense about being cancelled from you.
Your answers were the ones you wanted to give, no direct answers. No numericals.
As regards corruption, my sentiment was a broad expression of the outrage many people, including Labourites, feel at this appointment.
There should be a full inquiry, possibly more than Acoba looking at it. How long has this most senior civil servant, a Downing Street veteran trusted with top Tories’ intimate secrets, been chatting to Starmer about running Labour’s campaign to oust the very Government she has been working for? Many Tories are currently being judged on emails and WhatsApps — what would hers and his reveal? The public should be told. Starmer concedes they have known and liked each other for years — and her devotion to Labour is obviously not a recent fad.
This scandal fuels the already massive suspicion that our elected Government, for all its errors, has also been stitched up by a staunchly left-wing civil service itching to work for Labour. It's a dreadful look.
Lefties on here always claim that anti-Tory Whitehall bias is merely right-wing paranoia.
Gray and Starmer seem to have blown that defence to bits. But let's see what Acoba say.
"How does Sue Gray's appointment to the Chief of Staff represent "corruption"? You think that she deliberately lied or falsified evidence or misrepresented what was found? Why do her findings appear to align with those of the Tory dominated Parliamentary Privileges Committee who conducted their own, independent, investigation? "Boris Johnson ‘acting like Trump’ to undermine Partygate probe, say Tory MPs Former PM and allies ‘desperate’, as they suggest Sue Gray’s report could be bias' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-partygate-trump-sue-gray-b2294402.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands." I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman??" Why do I see this pop up as a point of debate all the time? It's nonsense being that there are now over 100 genders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true." The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it." Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman??" I would over a man who hides in a fridge. Although I am not voting for either Labour or the Tories anytime soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? I would over a man who hides in a fridge. Although I am not voting for either Labour or the Tories anytime soon. " Ok fair point although ironically that same man alo still won the last General Election after he hid in a fridge but yeah I won't be voting for either Tories or Labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? I would over a man who hides in a fridge. Although I am not voting for either Labour or the Tories anytime soon. Ok fair point although ironically that same man alo still won the last General Election after he hid in a fridge but yeah I won't be voting for either Tories or Labour" The none/ no vote would win the election every time.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? I would over a man who hides in a fridge. Although I am not voting for either Labour or the Tories anytime soon. Ok fair point although ironically that same man alo still won the last General Election after he hid in a fridge but yeah I won't be voting for either Tories or Labour" Same man has also nominated his father for a knighthood! No idea what for? Maybe the domestic abuse against his wife? Maybe the foresight of securing his dual citizenship in France so he was not impacted by Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also and seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? I would over a man who hides in a fridge. Although I am not voting for either Labour or the Tories anytime soon. Ok fair point although ironically that same man alo still won the last General Election after he hid in a fridge but yeah I won't be voting for either Tories or Labour The none/ no vote would win the election every time. "I will definitely vote. But not for either of Labour or the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else?" Very unlikely to happen I feel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else?" For the fourth time, yes I exaggerated when saying there were hardly any private strikes. It was also secondary to the poi t I was making. Mainly because they have been brief and at small scale compared to the public sector. I will not hold my breadth waiting for you to acknowledge how much influence the policies of any Government have on both the private and public sectors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else? For the fourth time, yes I exaggerated when saying there were hardly any private strikes. It was also secondary to the poi t I was making. Mainly because they have been brief and at small scale compared to the public sector. I will not hold my breadth waiting for you to acknowledge how much influence the policies of any Government have on both the private and public sectors." I don't need to acknowledge, I didn't claim otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else? Very unlikely to happen I feel" In fairness, nearly every post of yours is just insulting people who question brexit or the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me he has not stood up for all those striking workers. He lied to get elected as leader / broke his promises For me he is a Tory possibly pale blue - looking after the same multimillionaires that the real Tory have over most of my lifetime If he come to my car door down the dogging car park he would get told to fuck right off - I agree with the first point. I do find that lack of overt support for the strikes surprising, however I can see that if there are future pay negotiations it becomes difficult for the Government to say it is unreasonable to strike rather than negotiate even if the circumstances are very different. Trying not to be a hostage to fortune, I guess. What did he lie about and what promises did he break to become leader? He can't be seen to be overtly supporting strikers if he wants business backing. I guess so, although there is little, if any, striking in the private sector because due to the labour shortage (particularly skilled labour) they are just coughing up. However, perception is reality. That's the foolish masquerade of politics sometimes. You cannot actually say what you mean. Although some genuinely do not mean what they say...Boris Johnson. Travel, Mail, Distribution, Barristers, Universities etc. are all private business. Travel, meaning rail, is defined by Government. The Barristers pay dispute was over public criminal cases. Again Government. University income based on fees (falling due to foreign students not feeling welcome) and research funding (off a Horizon funding cliff). Government choices. That leaves Royal Mail. You really will find anything to blame of Govt. The Govt do not set the wages of any of these industries, maybe I'll give you the Barristers. You forget the Ferries were striking too. And I didn't mention BT or Amazon. It's not 'little, if any', you just refuse to see it. The rail companies are unable to negotiate train staff pay rises without Government permission. It's one of the most widely publicised points of the dispute. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/train-strike-chaos-continue-ministers-rail-firms-rmt-1693370 The negotiating position of the universities may well be poorly executed but their incomes are affected directly by Government policy on immigration and research. UK universities hit by 40% fall in EU students since Brexit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/brexit-eu-university-students-uk-b2021553.html Although other overseas student numbers are up. UK university research faces funding cliff edge as EU support ends https://www.ft.com/content/ca6ed436-12c2-4f81-8454-4f532429e754 Funding crunch to limit top UK universities places. ...falling per-student funding forces institutions to reduce their offers despite rising demand... https://www.ft.com/content/46840025-02b2-4c95-b1fb-47420c42727d If you actually believe that Government (of any colour) has no substantive influence on these things then go ahead. Ferries were due to shocking business practises allowed by many Governments. BT, indeed, on them. They caved completely in the end. Amazon doing in the UK what they do in the US. You are correct that I haven't considered all strike action but relative to the public sector it's not quite as big a deal, is it? The private sector is generally meeting pay demands. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this in "I'm more intellectual than you". The fact remains that there has been plenty of strikes across private sector business. You claim was 'little, if any', that is not true. The point that I was actually waking was that some of these are heavily influenced by Government policy as much as by what private organisations can do on their own. You don't seem to be able to accept that. I've already acknowledged that I missed several strikes. I will do it again now if your ego requires it. Why are you continually talking about MY 'ego'. Do you think there could ever be a time when you can admit your wrong without trying to belittle someone else? For the fourth time, yes I exaggerated when saying there were hardly any private strikes. It was also secondary to the poi t I was making. Mainly because they have been brief and at small scale compared to the public sector. I will not hold my breadth waiting for you to acknowledge how much influence the policies of any Government have on both the private and public sectors. I don't need to acknowledge, I didn't claim otherwise. " Luckily I didn't hold my breath | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer lied to get elected...said it would be left to local constituency parties to elect their candidates for elections. He has used regional party organisation to prevent left leaning candidates even standing. Now he dictates Corbyn cannot stand...a liar and a fraud. Btw not a mention of anti semitism in motion today. Only losing 2019 election...by that token why is Ed Milliband in the Shadow Cabinet? LIAR." There's no doubt controversy is now regularly engulfing Starmer, today's outrage being just one example. Last year, Starmer was found to have breached the MPs’ code of conduct by failing to register on time eight interests, including gifts from football teams and the sale of some land. Speaking as the Inquiry was underway by Katherine Stone, Starmer said he was “absolutely confident” he had not broken the MPs’ code of conduct. He's getting into the habit of saying one thing and then being caught out fibbing, as you have demonstrated above in Kickoutcorbyngate, as I heard two shoppers refer to it in Waitrose last night. Could get interesting when they dig into how long ago he and Sue Gray have been chatting about the little job he's trying to give her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer lied to get elected...said it would be left to local constituency parties to elect their candidates for elections. He has used regional party organisation to prevent left leaning candidates even standing. Now he dictates Corbyn cannot stand...a liar and a fraud. Btw not a mention of anti semitism in motion today. Only losing 2019 election...by that token why is Ed Milliband in the Shadow Cabinet? LIAR. There's no doubt controversy is now regularly engulfing Starmer, today's outrage being just one example. Last year, Starmer was found to have breached the MPs’ code of conduct by failing to register on time eight interests, including gifts from football teams and the sale of some land. Speaking as the Inquiry was underway by Katherine Stone, Starmer said he was “absolutely confident” he had not broken the MPs’ code of conduct. He's getting into the habit of saying one thing and then being caught out fibbing, as you have demonstrated above in Kickoutcorbyngate, as I heard two shoppers refer to it in Waitrose last night. Could get interesting when they dig into how long ago he and Sue Gray have been chatting about the little job he's trying to give her "Oh Cheshire “as I heard two shoppers refer to it in Waitrose last night.” LOL not your “friends” this time then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer could be good. But he needs to start owning his mistakes and u turns. And we need to have some real alternatives to tory policy than simple criticism. It would be good to know labour intentions on trade deals, defense policy, HS2. Starmer this year needs to raml uo what his labour stands for. And for the LOVE OF CHRIST get the corbynites and idiots out. And get his shadow cabinet in order. Reeves embarrasses him weekly." I agree with the vast majority of this post. Reeves used to work at the Bank of England, but as you say frequently embarrasses herself! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who shops in Waitrose is a friend of mine "Booths is better.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who shops in Waitrose is a friend of mine
Booths is better.. "Booths Knutsford | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer could be good. But he needs to start owning his mistakes and u turns. And we need to have some real alternatives to tory policy than simple criticism. It would be good to know labour intentions on trade deals, defense policy, HS2. Starmer this year needs to raml uo what his labour stands for. And for the LOVE OF CHRIST get the corbynites and idiots out. And get his shadow cabinet in order. Reeves embarrasses him weekly." I agree with some of this. All it seems to me is that Starmer is presenting Labour as a less-shit Tories. I know they have a fraction of the budget for election campaigns, so they have to do something to try to gain votes. Maybe that will work. But it's not good enough for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
