FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Moronic nonsense
Moronic nonsense
Jump to: Newest in thread
Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing. "
If the cap fits...
My preference is that you have something real to moan about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging."
Not sure this part is true. The main arguments back then were:
1. What about Labour.
2. What about those people over there in the small boats.
3. Nothing wrong with siphoning billions off to their pals if they manage to dodge the law.
But it was a lot funnier than the 'Starmer is a nonce' and all the other nonsense these people are fed from wherever they get their "news". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
Am not a fan of the current Labour Party or it's leader. As I said on another thread he's a back stabbing, career climbing slime bag.
But I will argue against any criticism of them that I feel is unjustified or hypocritical.
It does seem a lot of the attacks are parroting the press which now has decided it's time to attack Labour. We all know how the press operate in Britain. Keep throwing mud on your front pages and hope some of it sticks. Get something wrong or be in danger of getting sued and hide a retraction and an apology on page 9 that no-one will read. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 7 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea "
Yes yes but apart from all that, what have the Romans (oops Labour) ever done for us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Am not a fan of the current Labour Party or it's leader. As I said on another thread he's a back stabbing, career climbing slime bag.
But I will argue against any criticism of them that I feel is unjustified or hypocritical.
It does seem a lot of the attacks are parroting the press which now has decided it's time to attack Labour. We all know how the press operate in Britain. Keep throwing mud on your front pages and hope some of it sticks. Get something wrong or be in danger of getting sued and hide a retraction and an apology on page 9 that no-one will read."
Speaking of hypocritical 
(Not you) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Not sure this part is true. The main arguments back then were:
1. What about Labour.
2. What about those people over there in the small boats.
3. Nothing wrong with siphoning billions off to their pals if they manage to dodge the law.
But it was a lot funnier than the 'Starmer is a nonce' and all the other nonsense these people are fed from wherever they get their "news"."
🤣
You agree then  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea "
I have debated before but not listened to. So I'm NOT gonna parrot my responses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea
I have debated before but not listened to. So I'm NOT gonna parrot my responses."
What is your debate?
Tories...Tories...
Give Labour time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea
I have debated before but not listened to. So I'm NOT gonna parrot my responses.
What is your debate?
Tories...Tories...
Give Labour time? "
Yawn |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Am not a fan of the current Labour Party or it's leader. As I said on another thread he's a back stabbing, career climbing slime bag.
But I will argue against any criticism of them that I feel is unjustified or hypocritical.
It does seem a lot of the attacks are parroting the press which now has decided it's time to attack Labour. We all know how the press operate in Britain. Keep throwing mud on your front pages and hope some of it sticks. Get something wrong or be in danger of getting sued and hide a retraction and an apology on page 9 that no-one will read.
Speaking of hypocritical
(Not you)"
So because am not a fan, I should automatically attack them on every issue. Even if I might think the attack is unjustified..?
That's what I take from your reply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Am not a fan of the current Labour Party or it's leader. As I said on another thread he's a back stabbing, career climbing slime bag.
But I will argue against any criticism of them that I feel is unjustified or hypocritical.
It does seem a lot of the attacks are parroting the press which now has decided it's time to attack Labour. We all know how the press operate in Britain. Keep throwing mud on your front pages and hope some of it sticks. Get something wrong or be in danger of getting sued and hide a retraction and an apology on page 9 that no-one will read.
Speaking of hypocritical
(Not you)
So because am not a fan, I should automatically attack them on every issue. Even if I might think the attack is unjustified..?
That's what I take from your reply. "
That not what I said or even implied so not sure how you got to that conclusion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the budget does not produce for economic growth they are toast
Three months of dodgy donations, donor holiday flats, controversial winter fuel policy downvoted by unions, and not stopping the boats
If tax rises are all they have for ideas then they are done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?..."
dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either"
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though."
Diane Abbott? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though."
No it won't the people who run the labour party are bigger dinosaurs than those who run the Tories,top job in labour will always be a white man,hell at least the Tories have had a few woman pm,s and someone who wasn't white,for a party of inclusion labour don't look very inclusive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though.
Diane Abbott?"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing.
If the cap fits...
My preference is that you have something real to moan about."
so, no decrease in the amount of small boats arriving (actually an increase in this time last year), taking the WFA away from pensioners (many charities and unions say this is cruel) - Labour’s own estimation 4 years ago was 4000 elderly would die if this happened. Massive cronyism amongst the top team - sleaze beyond sleaze. Lies about a 22bn black hole (refusing to release the data on what makes up that amount). Caving into unions and now the nurses unions say they want more than the 5.5% previously accepted. Two tier policing….
The list goes on. I am 100% sure if the Tories had just come into power and had a record like that in just 11 weeks, you would be all over them.
Labour are showing that they are not fit for office and no matter how bad the Tories were (and yes, they were bad), it appears that Labour are worse. Probably why they have only been in power for just over 13 years since 1979. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though.
Diane Abbott?"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X"
Were they handing some sort of flyers out about these lines at the Reform conference? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing.
If the cap fits...
My preference is that you have something real to moan about. so, no decrease in the amount of small boats arriving (actually an increase in this time last year),
"
Not spreading yet more hate and fear towards immigrants. This has been a positive.
"
taking the WFA away from pensioners (many charities and unions say this is cruel) -
"
They haven't taken it away, they've made it means tested. Although this is a genuine concern.
"
Labour’s own estimation 4 years ago was 4000 elderly would die if this happened. Massive cronyism amongst the top team - sleaze beyond sleaze.
"
Just ridiculous, it's not even vaguely close to being a spot on the coattails of the previous government.
"
Lies about a 22bn black hole (refusing to release the data on what makes up that amount).
"
Hardly their fault that the country was left in the shit by the previous 14 years of Tory rule.
"
Caving into unions and now the nurses unions say they want more than the 5.5% previously accepted.
"
Better pay for nurses. Excellent.
"
Two tier policing….
"
Yes, peaceful environmental protesters get much longer sentences than rioting racists. But still, hardly Labours fault.
"
The list goes on. I am 100% sure if the Tories had just come into power and had a record like that in just 11 weeks, you would be all over them.
Labour are showing that they are not fit for office and no matter how bad the Tories were (and yes, they were bad), it appears that Labour are worse. Probably why they have only been in power for just over 13 years since 1979."
I think you adequately gave lots of evidence for the OP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X"
Yet more evidence to suggest the OP was correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X
Were they handing some sort of flyers out about these lines at the Reform conference?"
Why which one of the three you interested in?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X
Were they handing some sort of flyers out about these lines at the Reform conference?
Why which one of the three you interested in? "
I'm just curious as to why a certain sort of person is busy spouting the same bullshit wherever they can at the mo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X
Were they handing some sort of flyers out about these lines at the Reform conference?
Why which one of the three you interested in?
I'm just curious as to why a certain sort of person is busy spouting the same bullshit wherever they can at the mo."
Mmmm interesting a certain sort of person??
Which part do you believe to be BS as you state ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Mmmm interesting a certain sort of person??"
The sort who'd buy an 'I'm with stupid t-shirt' and wear it inside out while mumbling something about sheeple.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mmmm interesting a certain sort of person??
The sort who'd buy an 'I'm with stupid t-shirt' and wear it inside out while mumbling something about sheeple.
"
No , no I made a statement that the Labour Party is racist, has aided child grooming and does take freebie gifts, when pensioners are going to freeze this winter. Which is why most people with a working morale compass dislike them. So can you not come back with a constructive response?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
Pardon me for asking but do you know what Labour values they originally had? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mmmm interesting a certain sort of person??
The sort who'd buy an 'I'm with stupid t-shirt' and wear it inside out while mumbling something about sheeple.
No , no I made a statement that the Labour Party is racist, has aided child grooming and does take freebie gifts, when pensioners are going to freeze this winter. Which is why most people with a working morale compass dislike them. So can you not come back with a constructive response??"
From the OP. "there is just banal mudslinging."
In this thread alone it's descended further, as per above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Mmmm interesting a certain sort of person??
The sort who'd buy an 'I'm with stupid t-shirt' and wear it inside out while mumbling something about sheeple.
No , no I made a statement that the Labour Party is racist, has aided child grooming and does take freebie gifts, when pensioners are going to freeze this winter. Which is why most people with a working morale compass dislike them. So can you not come back with a constructive response??"
The most constructive response I can offer is to suggest you give Facebook a break. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing.
If the cap fits...
My preference is that you have something real to moan about. so, no decrease in the amount of small boats arriving (actually an increase in this time last year), taking the WFA away from pensioners (many charities and unions say this is cruel) - Labour’s own estimation 4 years ago was 4000 elderly would die if this happened. Massive cronyism amongst the top team - sleaze beyond sleaze. Lies about a 22bn black hole (refusing to release the data on what makes up that amount). Caving into unions and now the nurses unions say they want more than the 5.5% previously accepted. Two tier policing….
The list goes on. I am 100% sure if the Tories had just come into power and had a record like that in just 11 weeks, you would be all over them.
Labour are showing that they are not fit for office and no matter how bad the Tories were (and yes, they were bad), it appears that Labour are worse. Probably why they have only been in power for just over 13 years since 1979."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Well not everyone is keen as you, to support an anti semite, child grooming, free loading political party like you. X"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea
I have debated before but not listened to. So I'm NOT gonna parrot my responses."
Not that i can recall, I'm all ears go for it.
Do you disagree with my summary, if so why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea
I have debated before but not listened to. So I'm NOT gonna parrot my responses.
Not that i can recall, I'm all ears go for it.
Do you disagree with my summary, if so why?"
I'm done discussing. Having reduced brain activity capacity, I'm not wasting it here anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares"
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example. "
Do you disagree with anything I listed about this governments decision making, policy or operational dysfunction?
Happy to hear your disagreement on what I have written |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Do you disagree with anything I listed about this governments decision making, policy or operational dysfunction?
Happy to hear your disagreement on what I have written"
I'll be honest, I didn't see your post.
I'm more referring to stuff like:
- Starmer is a nonce.
- all the rich people left the UK last time Labour were in power.
- sleaze beyond sleaze
- labour supporting child grooming
Etc etc. it's like a competition to who can say the most ridiculous thing about Labour and pass it off as a legitimate comment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example. "
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start."
Maybe. But most of the criticism is just ridiculous nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares"
I'm not leaving.
Sorry to disappoint.
Just interacting less as there's less intellectual debate. And laughing at, well crap (as well as sarcasm that is actually funny)  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start."
New job, transition period. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period. "
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree. "
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period.
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period.
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though. "
You seem to be glazing over the majority of the absolute nonsense that's being spouted.
No one is saying there isn't legitimate reasons to be critical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period.
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though.
You seem to be glazing over the majority of the absolute nonsense that's being spouted.
No one is saying there isn't legitimate reasons to be critical. "
And yet lots of people don't want to discuss those legitimate reasons. Much easier to laugh at the nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
Am not a fan of the current Labour Party or it's leader. As I said on another thread he's a back stabbing, career climbing slime bag.
But I will argue against any criticism of them that I feel is unjustified or hypocritical.
It does seem a lot of the attacks are parroting the press which now has decided it's time to attack Labour. We all know how the press operate in Britain. Keep throwing mud on your front pages and hope some of it sticks. Get something wrong or be in danger of getting sued and hide a retraction and an apology on page 9 that no-one will read.
Speaking of hypocritical
(Not you)
So because am not a fan, I should automatically attack them on every issue. Even if I might think the attack is unjustified..?
That's what I take from your reply.
That not what I said or even implied so not sure how you got to that conclusion. "
Apologies, misread it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I haven't been happy with Labour since the 60's then the 1978 debarcle. They still haven't improved and they haven't and aren't going to help the working people like they claim. This current lot will will dish out every excuse in the book to rip off the British people.
Pushing the long term sick back to work probably the most dangerous thing to do.
Firms aren't likely to employ people who could pass out in the work place cause a risk to themselves,others and the public.
Health and safety has moved on scince the 70's.
Turns out there are other means to fill the blackhole after watching Peston the other night.
Martin Lewis seems to be the only proper advisor the government have and he doesn't even work for them.
Whitehall are going to be wielding the old cricket bat soon and knocking a few of them for six.
Don't believe the hype when they claim they have fixed the economy to get a second term. If any of them get that far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
Are you familiar with the phrase “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”?
When the previous government were in power, every single thing they did was criticised on here. Everything.
New government, same thing. Get used to it, it will always happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing. "
Exactly.
It’s not so much that people are criticising labour, there are criticising the government. Doesn’t matter who is in power, the same thing will always happen.
Incredibly naive of labour supporters to think otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing.
Exactly.
It’s not so much that people are criticising labour, there are criticising the government. Doesn’t matter who is in power, the same thing will always happen.
Incredibly naive of labour supporters to think otherwise. "
Oh come on, there are more RRs here than LLs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period.
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though.
You seem to be glazing over the majority of the absolute nonsense that's being spouted.
No one is saying there isn't legitimate reasons to be critical. "
I’m glazing over the nonsense being spouted for a very good reason, namely it is nonsense and not worth my time or effort.
My thoughts are towards the top of the thread, and it is very interesting that not one individual has raised a single argument against the post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow….. so, it’s ok to criticise the Tories but we cannot do the same for Labour. Yep, sounds about right. The left hate any for of comment/opinion from us plebs.
Amazing.
Exactly.
It’s not so much that people are criticising labour, there are criticising the government. Doesn’t matter who is in power, the same thing will always happen.
Incredibly naive of labour supporters to think otherwise.
Oh come on, there are more RRs here than LLs "
You need to get used to the fact that people will always be giving it about the government.
And the new government are deliberately front-loading their tenure with unpopular decisions.
As for the free glasses … Jesus … |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I want this government to succeed. It’s on all of our hear interests for them to do so. But I am not feeling confident. "
That is why I’m not happy, if they succeed we succeed, and I’m not getting the slightest indication that they are capable of success. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I want this government to succeed. It’s on all of our hear interests for them to do so. But I am not feeling confident.
That is why I’m not happy, if they succeed we succeed, and I’m not getting the slightest indication that they are capable of success. "
… and this is their best effort after years sitting in opposition, with a clear opportunities to plan and prepare for government …
What happens when they are under pressure and having to deal with new situations? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I want this government to succeed. It’s on all of our hear interests for them to do so. But I am not feeling confident.
That is why I’m not happy, if they succeed we succeed, and I’m not getting the slightest indication that they are capable of success. "
No big announcements on the economy; manufacturing, farming, fishing, tourism etc
Higher taxes is the only message from Labour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Do you disagree with anything I listed about this governments decision making, policy or operational dysfunction?
Happy to hear your disagreement on what I have written
I'll be honest, I didn't see your post.
I'm more referring to stuff like:
- Starmer is a nonce.
- all the rich people left the UK last time Labour were in power.
- sleaze beyond sleaze
- labour supporting child grooming
Etc etc. it's like a competition to who can say the most ridiculous thing about Labour and pass it off as a legitimate comment. "
Labour aiding child grooming, check out Nazir Afzal and his interview regarding the then Labour PM. I think the ex head of the CPS is a credible enough witness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You've been (rightfully) bitching about the government for ages
Now you're upset people are bitching about the government
Go figure
You sound like one of those guy's throwing their toys out of the pram and announcing you're leaving fab
No one cares
The main difference is that the previous government had a lot for people to legitimately complain about.
People are just saying the maddest shit they can think of about Labour and Starmer and trying to pass it off as legitimate complaints. This thread is an excellent example.
Or is it that some want to sweep Labour's ineptitude under the carpet? They've hardly got off to an impressive start.
New job, transition period.
Burying your head in the sand, there is plenty to discuss, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to though.
You seem to be glazing over the majority of the absolute nonsense that's being spouted.
No one is saying there isn't legitimate reasons to be critical.
I’m glazing over the nonsense being spouted for a very good reason, namely it is nonsense and not worth my time or effort.
My thoughts are towards the top of the thread, and it is very interesting that not one individual has raised a single argument against the post."
Fair enough, but there's the point, the legitimate criticisms are lost amongst the tidal wave of bullshit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I tend to agree with the OP.
It's getting really tiresome the constant thread's of people who have a certain political agenda trying to engage in tittle tattle.
I have no particular allegiance to any political party,but the Tories had their time in charge and ended up making a right fucking mess the last few years so let's give labour a chance.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's kinda getting very one sided in here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I want this government to succeed. It’s on all of our hear interests for them to do so. But I am not feeling confident.
That is why I’m not happy, if they succeed we succeed, and I’m not getting the slightest indication that they are capable of success.
… and this is their best effort after years sitting in opposition, with a clear opportunities to plan and prepare for government …
What happens when they are under pressure and having to deal with new situations? "
A lot of those years have been spent plotting, infighting, back stabbing and culling within the party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though.
Diane Abbott?
"
No, Kemi Badenoch.
I foresee that she will cross the floor to benefit
her career.
Could be a smart move for a career politician, which most of them are.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in another 57 months they're toast. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps.
The big question is how many leaders will they have had during that time? More than the Tories or less than the Tories?...dunno if they will have as many as the Tories but I reckon starmer won't be in his job a year from now,it's not so much half the country hating him it's looking more and more obvious a sizeable chunk of his own party can't stand the bloke either
Think he'll last longer than that for reasons of pragmatism rather than popularity. The next Labour leader to fight an election will be female though.
Diane Abbott?
No, Kemi Badenoch.
I foresee that she will cross the floor to benefit
her career.
Could be a smart move for a career politician, which most of them are.
"
That’s seriously your guess for next labour leader? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ronisMan 7 weeks ago
Edinburgh |
"If the budget does not produce for economic growth they are toast
Three months of dodgy donations, donor holiday flats, controversial winter fuel policy downvoted by unions, and not stopping the boats
If tax rises are all they have for ideas then they are done "
How will labour create economic growth?
Any one got any suggestions? Maybe some labour supporters could give their opinion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging."
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others"
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source."
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS"
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 7 weeks ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term."
MSM really has got the knifes out, it's never been more apparent how right wing put press and BBC are, pushing and pushing.
Reminds you of Angela Rayner non story they pushed for long enough.
He is our PM, he gets clothes bought, big deal. Do people really want him to look like Johnson did when PM....an absolute tramp. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Herein lies the problem
You are not posting facts just opinions or misinformation
Easy one to call you out on
The office for budget responsibility issues a letter to the conservative government ( fact) highlighting the gap that the conservatives were hiding
Google OBR letter £21 b gap and it’s freely available
Caught with your pants down 🤡🤡👍
"Moronic?
Here are my gripes and reasons why I feel the Labour Party are totally out of their depth… let’s have a chat about them…
He announced GB energy was up and running, that is a shocker if it is.
He cut WFA without any consultation or risk assessment.
He claims in every interview that he inherited a 22 billion blackhole but refuses to release the details of the 22 billion blackhole under FOI requests.
He did not negotiate a bilateral contract when awarding pay increases way above inflation, leaving the door open for more industrial action and no improvements to services.
Britains biggest house builder is now cancelling building projects due to labours unachievable housing plans and the impact it will have on them as a business! Labour will rely on the private sector to do the work, again without any form of consultation.
He broke the ceiling for SPAD's salaries and approved a salary above his own for Sue Gray, it has caused massive unrest and numerous leaks of information from no10.
Sue Gray is conducting national meetings of importance and deciding on who or isn't being appointed in roles such as special advisors, whilst keeping Starmer out of the loop, at this point it appears Gray is having more of a hand in running the country that Starmer.
His ratings are going down quickly, showing a lack of confidence in him as a person and leader.
He has already needed to stipulate publicly that he is in control, not a good luck and especially when you consider that any vote against his policies will be punished by removing the whip. That is not being in control, that is the signs of a very nervous man who knows he his hiding the true feelings behind his decisions and policies.
He has done nothing to lift the mood of the country, rather the opposite with his constant warnings of pain to come and tiring people out with claims of the 22 billion blackhole. This in fairness could be added to the ratings dip.
His cabinet are dysfunctional, disagreeing with each other over policy and direction, it rather embarrassing and delivers no coherent messages.
Looking forward to hearing something other than give them a chance, which really isn’t an answer more of a plea "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998)."
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs "
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!"
Give it time... they've only been in power a couple of months |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!"
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Give it time... they've only been in power a couple of months "
Excuse me but the previous poster is saying it has happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical "
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!"
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000"
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio)."
That argument can be applied to pretty much every case of nepotism and bribery.
The two of them having qualifications for the jobs doesn't mean that they have to be selected for the jobs. There must be other candidates who applied for the job and also had similar qualifications. The question is if these two were chosen based on merit or based on their links to the Labour party donations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio)."
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998)."
Tens of thousands of pounds in presents, clothes, glasses, accommodation etc from one donor … and that donor then gets a pass to number 10 despite not having an official government role …. surely you see they that doesn’t pass the smell test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!"
Banker, Ian Corfield who donated 20,000 to Rachel Reeves has been appointed a director in the UK treasury.
There will be more |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This lot are no better than the tories, but it is our faults, we let the tories do as they wished, whilst labour on the then sidelines watching could not believe the things the tories were getting away with, the things we were letting the tories get away with.
So now it is their turn and they will have their share, at the cost of more suffering.
The next voting round just think they are gangsters who are in a position to make their dealings legal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Banker, Ian Corfield who donated 20,000 to Rachel Reeves has been appointed a director in the UK treasury.
There will be more "
“Treasury failed to inform watchdog of top official’s Labour donations” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Banker, Ian Corfield who donated 20,000 to Rachel Reeves has been appointed a director in the UK treasury.
There will be more "
Sue gray’s son was quick to get an appointment too! 😂 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
That argument can be applied to pretty much every case of nepotism and bribery.
The two of them having qualifications for the jobs doesn't mean that they have to be selected for the jobs. There must be other candidates who applied for the job and also had similar qualifications. The question is if these two were chosen based on merit or based on their links to the Labour party donations "
Ahhh so you admit you don't know whether it was merit or cronyism. As for Emily, I haven't a clue about her circumstances based on the info in this thread. It's possibly my perception but "donation in kind" appears to be stretching it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving"
20k vs millions, and a donation that came from an ex employer... you tell me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about? "
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers "
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story."
The non disclosure and obfuscation of the gifts is the story |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software. "
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The tories were just as bad no they were a lot worst.
But I knew labour would turn out the same.
What would you do if you witnessed the tories taking the P and the nation just sits and watches and do as there told.
Who would not want a piece of that action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story."
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software. "
Ah,I understand now! Whataboutery as a defence for labour's mismanagement and unethical practices as soon as they walked though the door.
Clean up politics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving
20k vs millions, and a donation that came from an ex employer... you tell me "
Tell you what? I have given the information requested which it appeared you doubted even existed. Now it's straight to whataboutery. Labour quite rightly called out this sort of behaviour when the Tories were doing it but seem perfectly ok with doing it themselves. It at the point where an MP has quit and slated SKS for the things done already since taking office |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?"
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence. "
There is a different rule for govt ministers vs back benchers and shadow ministers in declaring gifts etc. On LK mcfadden states this is going to change. In other words equity in declaration. All these non stories come from a point of when in opposition. I have stated this before.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving
20k vs millions, and a donation that came from an ex employer... you tell me
Tell you what? I have given the information requested which it appeared you doubted even existed. Now it's straight to whataboutery. Labour quite rightly called out this sort of behaviour when the Tories were doing it but seem perfectly ok with doing it themselves. It at the point where an MP has quit and slated SKS for the things done already since taking office"
The truth is I gave out the name, you copied and pasted the article, and removed my comment.
That is the truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving
20k vs millions, and a donation that came from an ex employer... you tell me
Tell you what? I have given the information requested which it appeared you doubted even existed. Now it's straight to whataboutery. Labour quite rightly called out this sort of behaviour when the Tories were doing it but seem perfectly ok with doing it themselves. It at the point where an MP has quit and slated SKS for the things done already since taking office"
Not knowing does not equal doubting .
There is no comparison with Tories then and Labour now. Let Labour commit offences against the code, let them make apparent acts of cronyism (not maybes), let them be a shit govt before the bleating.
I hope they have success. I had hoped Tories would have some success (as opposed to having so many failures that most people are just so anti politics, politicians and so on.
But people won't. People seem to like complaining and judging against what they think is happening than what is actually happening.
Go for it. Fill your boots and the thread with bleat after bleat after bleat. The facts don't matter after all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no "
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lex46TV/TS 6 weeks ago
Near Wells |
I’ve always voted Tory but voted Lib Dem this time as I couldn’t stand the current Conservative Party.
I’m prepared to give the Labour Party a chance, the things I’m concerned about are the massive pay rises to train drivers, etc. I feel all that does is encouraging other unions to strike and demand huge rises, knowing the government will cave in.
I’m not overly bothered about the gifts etc to the Prime Minister, it’s been going on for years. But it does come across as a bit hypocritical as the amount of moaning they did about it when the Conservatives were in power.
Also the heating allowance, this was never mentioned pre election so I understand why people feel a bit annoyed with it.
I’ll wait until the budget before I take more views, a lot of stores flying around at the, probably most of them are just made up.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence.
There is a different rule for govt ministers vs back benchers and shadow ministers in declaring gifts etc. On LK mcfadden states this is going to change. In other words equity in declaration. All these non stories come from a point of when in opposition. I have stated this before.
"
Bollocks to declaration, I’m not looking for declaration, I’m looking for the practices to stop.
As soon as a politician takes a favour of any kind they are compromised.
People don’t give politicians favours because they are just really good people, they do it because somewhere down the line, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some when and in some form, they have an expectation of a favour in return, this has to be removed from elected politicians whether in government or opposition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence.
There is a different rule for govt ministers vs back benchers and shadow ministers in declaring gifts etc. On LK mcfadden states this is going to change. In other words equity in declaration. All these non stories come from a point of when in opposition. I have stated this before.
Bollocks to declaration, I’m not looking for declaration, I’m looking for the practices to stop.
As soon as a politician takes a favour of any kind they are compromised.
People don’t give politicians favours because they are just really good people, they do it because somewhere down the line, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some when and in some form, they have an expectation of a favour in return, this has to be removed from elected politicians whether in government or opposition. "
Yup, "No such thing as a free lunch" as they say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence.
There is a different rule for govt ministers vs back benchers and shadow ministers in declaring gifts etc. On LK mcfadden states this is going to change. In other words equity in declaration. All these non stories come from a point of when in opposition. I have stated this before.
Bollocks to declaration, I’m not looking for declaration, I’m looking for the practices to stop.
As soon as a politician takes a favour of any kind they are compromised.
People don’t give politicians favours because they are just really good people, they do it because somewhere down the line, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some when and in some form, they have an expectation of a favour in return, this has to be removed from elected politicians whether in government or opposition.
Yup, "No such thing as a free lunch" as they say."
Singapore has the cleanest political system in the world, an M.P last week was in court.
Guess why?
He accepted gifts which is against the law there, he is facing prison the charge is so serious, while in Britian all M.Ps need to do is say sorry job done back to the same old same old.
Singapore want it people to believe in the political system, unlike here we tolerate it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards. "
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
From politicos:
Labour donor bags plum UK Treasury job
Banker Ian Corfield is appointed to a top role in the civil service just months after donating thousands of pounds to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. LONDON — A banker who donated over £20,000 to prominent Labour figures and worked for the party in the months leading up to the election has been given a top civil service job in Britain’s finance ministry.
Ian Corfield, who most recently donated thousands of pounds to now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves, became a director in the U.K.’s Treasury this July.
From the BBC:
Labour under fire over second top civil service job.
The government is facing questions about a second appointment to a senior civil service role of a person linked to previous donations to the Labour Party.
Emily Middleton was named a director general in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where the secretary of state is Peter Kyle.
She was previously a partner at consultancy firm Public Digital, which paid for her secondment to Mr Kyle's office in opposition - a donation in kind of more than £65,000
A banker gets a job in a finance department, he definitely couldn't be the right person for the job.
Emily goes from digital to technology, another unsuitable candidate (oh and the donation is in kind... rightio).
You asked for examples with figures. I provided them that made the national news. Several news outlets reported this as cronyism. Even the guardian reported it and also that the banker quit the job due to the backlash. The banker just happened to be someone that gave a large amount of money to Labour and the other just happened to be part of an organization that gave a large amount of money. Both ended up getting top jobs. If it was the Tories still in, would you be as forgiving
20k vs millions, and a donation that came from an ex employer... you tell me
Tell you what? I have given the information requested which it appeared you doubted even existed. Now it's straight to whataboutery. Labour quite rightly called out this sort of behaviour when the Tories were doing it but seem perfectly ok with doing it themselves. It at the point where an MP has quit and slated SKS for the things done already since taking office
Not knowing does not equal doubting .
There is no comparison with Tories then and Labour now. Let Labour commit offences against the code, let them make apparent acts of cronyism (not maybes), let them be a shit govt before the bleating.
I hope they have success. I had hoped Tories would have some success (as opposed to having so many failures that most people are just so anti politics, politicians and so on.
But people won't. People seem to like complaining and judging against what they think is happening than what is actually happening.
Go for it. Fill your boots and the thread with bleat after bleat after bleat. The facts don't matter after all."
I was pointing out things that have actually happened under Labour already. They are facts so it's not a case of 'never mind the facts' Not speculation or prediction but actually happened hence why I posted. These are facts of actual events and I provided the information requested. The information is not from Twitter or such places and is not a guess or a possible plan that may or may not happen. These things have actually happened hence the criticism they have received from many places including their own MP's. I complained about it when the Tories done it and it led to me not voting for them. Personally I hold any government of whatever colour to the same standards. I don't accept the old 'well the other lot done it so it's ok for us to do it and don't criticise until a later time' arguments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story."
So you’re ok with corruption, nepotism and cronyism as long as the numbers aren’t very big .
Classy! Yeah. New government cleaning things up nicely there …
The gifts are not a non-story. They just don’t smell right, which is win several high-ranking ministers have said they will stop.
It’s ok, we get it, in your eyes labour can do no wrong. Understood |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
There is a starting point of ‘millions’ before cronyism becomes a problem ?
I would say it is a problem at any level by any politician.
The problem I have with the receipt of favours, be it monetary or otherwise, is that immediately on receipt of favours an MP has compromised themselves, whether leverage is gained or not.
The colour of the rosette is irrelevant.
The general public has shown it disgust in the behaviour of the last government, I had hoped for change given the rhetoric of the incoming government but it’s just more of the same.
Failure to wholeheartedly condemn these practices facilitates there continued existence.
There is a different rule for govt ministers vs back benchers and shadow ministers in declaring gifts etc. On LK mcfadden states this is going to change. In other words equity in declaration. All these non stories come from a point of when in opposition. I have stated this before.
Bollocks to declaration, I’m not looking for declaration, I’m looking for the practices to stop.
As soon as a politician takes a favour of any kind they are compromised.
People don’t give politicians favours because they are just really good people, they do it because somewhere down the line, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some when and in some form, they have an expectation of a favour in return, this has to be removed from elected politicians whether in government or opposition. "
I feel the same way. SKS saying “I followed the rules … and reported when someone bought me clothes and glasses” … completely missed the point. He js a multi-millionaire, he should buy his own bloody clothes, like a normal person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards.
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess "
If you don't know, what exactly is the relevance of your argument? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If labour, even at the point of one term, is found guilty of cronyism to the tune of millions to billions, jobs or contracts, I WILL condemn.
At present the gifts are a non story.
So you’re ok with corruption, nepotism and cronyism as long as the numbers aren’t very big .
Classy! Yeah. New government cleaning things up nicely there …
The gifts are not a non-story. They just don’t smell right, which is win several high-ranking ministers have said they will stop.
It’s ok, we get it, in your eyes labour can do no wrong. Understood "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards.
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess
If you don't know, what exactly is the relevance of your argument?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards.
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess
If you don't know, what exactly is the relevance of your argument?
"
Don't like being questioned much do you Amelie?
It's a fairly simple question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards.
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess
If you don't know, what exactly is the relevance of your argument?
Don't like being questioned much do you Amelie?
It's a fairly simple question. "
My argument was hesters donation =contract. Shouldn't have to repeat myself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anti labour threads fill this forum.
Bloody govt hasn't even given their first budget yet and the RRs condemn everything heard on the grapevine without (much) rationale.
Not even a chance for debate as they parrot what they say or what others say.
They don't even want the govt to be successful, which is the height of selfishness to be proved right.
There was more intellectual debate when the tories were in power. But now Labour is, there is just banal mudslinging.
Good luck to posters who see things for the way they are (mainly centrists or left leaning) if you can stay the term.
When a party takes office it is judged on its actions and comes under more scrum than when it was in opposition. There are some topics that are certainly to soon to judge. An example would be the small boat crossings which Labour are just as vocal about stopping as the Tories were. I feel we need to give them some time to smash the gangs as they promise. However there are things that they have done since taking office that can be discussed, like the WFA removal which their own estimates from a few years ago will kill nearly four thousand. Why is it wrong to voice objection to that? Why is it wrong to voice objection to donors being given top jobs? Why us it wrong to voice objection to certain people not buying their own clothes or glasses because a donor will do it for them? Is it wrong to voice objection to the VAT change on private schools? These are some of the things the government have done since taking office. Not speculation but things actually done so in my opinion voicing objections is perfectly reasonable. People having a different point of view to you does not make their input moronic, it just means they disagree.
That wouldn't come under banal mudslinging.
So we can continue to criticise the government for what they actually do then just like I have done for this government and the previous one along with others
Yeah and not what people think they are going to do cos they read it on X or other suspect source.
How gracious. No need to look at places like that and its not my cup of tea anyway, though in the past, stories about the previous government on those places were discussed. Anyway I will stick to standard media and see that just yesterday the BBC report another £16k of free clothes for SKS
Doesn't hit reasonable peoples' radars until it leads to paying out taxpayers' money contracts worth millions, re cronyism.
Do I think there should be a limit and not just transparency? Yes. I'm allowed gifts worth up to a tenner (good old generous nhs policy that's been the same since 1998).
Neither I nor the art claimed it was tax payers money in this instance. For this it is about the optics. For tax payers though there is donors that have been given top jobs
Top jobs like wallpaper = top bbc exec? Or was that the guy who arranged a loan? Bojo's middle name was cronyism.
Feel free to name those who were given jobs in this govt after donating x, y, z!
Not an official job, Lord Alli was given a no10 pass without the correct authorisation or vetting.
Not a bad ROI, a seat at the table with the countries decision makers.
It is unethical
Ohhhhh I see so he could come and go as he pleased for a limited time = being given a job. Wait, not an official job.
Do you RRs even know what you're bleating about?
Bleating? I'm really surprised you can't see the issue with a Lord Alli having direct access to no10 whenever he felt like it, the implications of this are huge.
A direct donor to the Starmer family, with unvetted access to the PM and cabinet ministers
A benefactor to the Labour Party for 25 years, who coordinates parties to get other benefactors.
The implications MAY be huge, they MAY also be bs.
Alli vs Hester. Alli gives. Hester gives and receives a contract worth millions providing primary/community healthcare software.
You have no idea what Alli is getting for his 'investment'.
As a rule of your own making, was Hesters software the best software for the job?
Since I have use it, I'm going to guess at no
You're going to guess?
It could possibly be the best for the purpose yet because it belongs to a Tory donor you're skeptical.
It really is a shame you can't bring yourself to holds both red and blue to the same standards.
Since I have not used another, of course it's a guess
If you don't know, what exactly is the relevance of your argument?
Don't like being questioned much do you Amelie?
It's a fairly simple question.
My argument was hesters donation =contract. Shouldn't have to repeat myself."
He could have had the best product and it had nothing to do with any donation.
At least, that's the arguments you're making for Labour donors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Going back to the original title of the thread: Moronic nonsense.
The irony when he stood at the conference outlining The Hillsborough law and insisting MP's and other public officials own their duty of candour, or face the consequences in a court of law.
Prime minister can we see the evidence behind the claim that you inherited a 22 billion blackhole and it is making you do painful things that you simply need to do?
NO.
Prime minister, why are you giving 11 billion to foreign countries and making people suffer in the UK if you are trying to claw back 22 billion.
It is important that these countries are given this money more than us keeping pensioners who have more than £12001 as yearly income warm this winter.
Prime minister, How do you feel about paying tax on your lavish freebies, do you feel the same way about that as you do placing VAT on private schools and non-dom's who you feel are dodging so much tax they will reduce NHS waiting lists and put food in the mouth of children at breakfast time?
Prime minister, is 22 billion a lot of money for this country to owe?
We know the answer Prime Minister. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
