At least the Tories aimed for higher backhanders than a pair of specs and some new strides.

Sponsored Links
What Starmer said was perfectly reasonable…as far as the £20k stands

I see nothing wrong with accepting that help

I’m not particularly bothered by the other freebies either, I don’t see any major conflict of interest in clothes, glasses or football season tickets…….the media are focussed on the wrong thing.


I have a major problem with the huge corporate donations that Labour have been taking, including from the pro Israel lobby, hedge fund managers etc etc……The destruction of this country is due to Tories setting policy for their backers and not for the people…..we can not have Labour doing the same.
 
What Starmer said was perfectly reasonable…as far as the £20k stands

I see nothing wrong with accepting that help

I’m not particularly bothered by the other freebies either, I don’t see any major conflict of interest in clothes, glasses or football season tickets…….the media are focussed on the wrong thing.


I have a major problem with the huge corporate donations that Labour have been taking, including from the pro Israel lobby, hedge fund managers etc etc……The destruction of this country is due to Tories setting policy for their backers and not for the people…..we can not have Labour doing the same.

In 2021 Starmer made a christmas broadcast urging people to work from home, the home he broadcast from was someone elses home, yep, Lord Alli's penthouse.
Downing St defended the move saying no rules had been broken because the use of the flat had been a 'one off'.
Now evidence has emerged he paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the same flat, and now the flat has been for the use of his son as a study space.

https://order-order.com/2024/09/26/...-home-defence-proven-wrong-within-30-minutes/
 
Mottie trying to excuse the billions frittered away by the Tories, given to their mates, by focusing on a few thousand pounds worth of gifts to Labour. :rolleyes:

Look at all those squirrels. :giggle:
 
Sponsored Links
In 2021 Starmer made a christmas broadcast urging people to work from home, the home he broadcast from was someone elses home, yep, Lord Alli's penthouse.
Downing St defended the move saying no rules had been broken because the use of the flat had been a 'one off'.
Now evidence has emerged he paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the same flat, and now the flat has been for the use of his son as a study space.

https://order-order.com/2024/09/26/...-home-defence-proven-wrong-within-30-minutes/
Guido Fawkes is a known disinformation provider.
Guido Fawkes is a right-wing political website published by British-Irish political blogger Paul Staines

Instead of criticising policy, he attacks the people.
A tactic very familiar to DIYnot users.
 
I have a major problem with the huge corporate donations that Labour have been taking, including from the pro Israel lobby, hedge fund managers etc etc……The destruction of this country is due to Tories setting policy for their backers and not for the people…..we can not have Labour doing the same.
All nice and simple but the money men are needed to invest in the country. The task is to create a situation where they will do that here. All pundits say the same thing in this area. It needs economic stability. a situation where taxation levels continue to drift up to record levels is not stable especially as a number of UK related aspects are not working correctly. Even the IMF have stated in the recent past that the UK must sort the social side out. That will include the NHS. The lot in other words.

Pundits also all say that the gov must invest itself to promote growth. It tends to kick things off.

So what is Reeves at. As she has spoken a bit now she aims to achieve a situation where taxation covers the country running aspects. The bulk of that is personal taxation, For instance 2% of NI is worth £20b. Raising that amount via the other taxation areas is not simple. They can only be pushed so far. Eg
In 2024-25 we estimate that CGT will raise £15.2 billion. This represents 1.3 per cent of all receipts and was equivalent to £530 per household and 0.5 per cent of national income.
So doubling it still wouldn't raise £20b. It's a broad area and yes she may alter it and similar. The IFS reckon some areas do need updating. Those changes may not be popular.

She will not want to borrow to run the general country aspects. She needs to consider general welfare costs and the rate they escalate at. This is the tough decision area. Where the money goes can be another one.

Borrowing. There can be scope for more of that but too much can have Truss like market reactions. Only do that in areas that promote growth.

So the IFS view is some new taxes that wont raise all that much and lots of small changes that total to a significant amount, Past having the actual budget they can not say more than that,

No austerity. All that means is expenditure will continue to increase rather than being cut. Just a broad rather than specific area view.

LOL All totally different to many years of the Tory ideas. You might say Labour is trying to face up to a real solution. The main Tory idea is cutting taxation solves all. Well it hasn't has it and it's gone up dramatically anyway.
 
Are you saying Alli doesn't own a flat that Starmer makes regular use of?
No I'm saying that given Guido Fawkes reputation I wouldn't rely on anything it claims. :rolleyes:
In 2005, Guido was voted the best in the Political Commentary category of The Backbencher Political Weblog Awards, run by The Guardian. It was not a survey of Guardian readers explicitly, but instead an internet poll linked to the Guido Fawkes website.

Similarly, I wouldn't place any reliance on your interpretation of a Guido Fawkes article, as highlighted in your post.
 
Last edited:
Now evidence has emerged he paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the same flat, and now the flat has been for the use of his son as a study space.
All one off uses. Please tell me why this area matters.
 
I’m not particularly bothered by the other freebies either, I don’t see any major conflict of interest in clothes, glasses or football season tickets…….the media are focussed on the wrong thing.
I look on it differently. These people are supposed to represent the people, no?

They get paid a decent enough salary, no?

They don't need and shouldn't be allowed to accept such gifts. There's a difference between 90 year old Dorothy handing in a box of chocs to the constituency office because their local MP achieved something good for the community, and these lot accepting free clothes, tickets for shows etc.

It's not difficult to do. Bring in a law banning it. However they (the MPs) don't want to do that ... MMmmm I wonder why.
 
I look on it differently. These people are supposed to represent the people, no?

They get paid a decent enough salary, no?

They don't need and shouldn't be allowed to accept such gifts. There's a difference between 90 year old Dorothy handing in a box of chocs to the constituency office because their local MP achieved something good for the community, and these lot accepting free clothes, tickets for shows etc.

It's not difficult to do. Bring in a law banning it. However they (the MPs) don't want to do that ... MMmmm I wonder why.
What if you were an MP, and in that capacity you were invited to open an event, to speak at an event, to 'put in an appearance'?
It's not a specific issue, activity or cause that you actively support, but you're not averse or against it, or it happens to be in your constituency.
Would you buy your own ticket, or insist you were allowed free entry, and with the appropriate security arrangements?

What if a friend took you to one side and suggested a clothes advisor to smarten up your image?
And offered to pay for some clothes?
What if someone suggested bifocal glasses to avoid you having to constantly shift your head position to deliver a speech?


Some articles have been outrageously biased. For example, the PM's wife's photographer was described as a 'vanity photographer'.
But when he was Sunak's photographer, he was described as 'the official photographer'. :rolleyes:

It seems to me the Labour critics have no basis for criticising the policies of Labour, so they go for the ad hominem approach.
 
She will not want to borrow to run the general country aspects. She needs to consider general welfare costs and the rate they escalate at. This is the tough decision area. Where the money goes can be another one.

Borrowing. There can be scope for more of that but too much can have Truss like market reactions. Only do that in areas that promote growth.

Isn't she (Reeves) talking about changing the fiscal rules to allow a higher amount of borrowing.
Todays news is she is trying to pressurize the OBR to upgrade their growth forecast to take into account things they are saying they will do, but haven't yet. (housebuilding).
 
Isn't she (Reeves) talking about changing the fiscal rules to allow a higher amount of borrowing.
Todays news is she is trying to pressurize the OBR to upgrade their growth forecast to take into account things they are saying they will do, but haven't yet. (housebuilding).
She's not the first Chancellor to pressure the OBR over forecasts.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Jeremy Hunt
Sajid Javid
Liz Truss
etc.


Rachael's Reeves approach is supported and approved by the Institute of Government.
These include a new ‘fiscal lock’ to ensure the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR)always produces a new forecast to accompany big fiscal policy measures; the OBR would also be asked to comment more substantively on the longer term benefits of public investment
 
They don't need and shouldn't be allowed to accept such gifts.
Years ago in my MOT station, we had someone take their part 2 of the MOT testers licence. Someone from the ministry comes down and observes them carrying out a mot test. He carried out the test and passed. As the inspector was finalising the paperwork, I pulled out a bottle of scotch and gave it to him as a thank you. He absolutely refused to take it saying they weren’t allowed as it would constitute a bribe.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top