The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[ml1dch]

42 minutes ago, colhint said:

I think the issue is he said he used the flat for his son to study but the date was after the exams.

GCSE exams this year were from 9th May to 19th June. Starmer added the use of the accommodation to the Register of Members' Financial Interests on August 2nd, declaring his use of it from 29th May to 13th July. 

Do you want to have a guess at what was announced a few days before 29th May, which was scheduled to take place a few days before 13th July? That meant Starmer might have preferred a quieter environment for his family for that six week period?

What's the impropriety here as you see it?

Edited 9 hours ago by ml1dch

[MaVilla]

Labour only a few weeks in to their term, and the damage control going on in here is actually funny.

If the tories had been up to what labour have, both in terms of polices and behaviours, the people in here undertaking damage control would be in the tories thread screaming from the rooftops about the evil, corrupt, child eating tory scum.

its laughable tbh, simping for a party regardless of what they do.

 

[colhint]

Nah don't think I'm wrong. Might be a bit of an overlap on the exams but he certainly stayed there for about a month after the exams.

The rest is all there on various news sites.

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Labour only a few weeks in to their term, and the damage control going on in here is actually funny.

If the tories had been up to what labour have, both in terms of polices and behaviours, the people in here undertaking damage control would be in the tories thread screaming from the rooftops about the evil, corrupt, child eating tory scum.

its laughable tbh, simping for a party regardless of what they do.

 

If you've got a problem with something someone says, or disagree with their point, quote it and have a conversation instead of this childish nonsense

[MaVilla]

Just now, Davkaus said:

If you've got a problem with something someone says, or disagree with their point, quote it and have a conversation instead of this childish nonsense

thanks for telling me what i can and cant say, i appreciate it.

[PaulC]

18 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

GCSE exams this year were from 9th May to 19th June. Starmer added the use of the accommodation to the Register of Members' Financial Interests on August 2nd, declaring his use of it from 29th May to 13th July. 

Do you want to have a guess at what was announced a few days before 29th May, which was scheduled to take place a few days before 13th July? That meant Starmer might have preferred a quieter environment for his family for that six week period?

What's the impropriety here as you see it?

The only impropriety I see is that he used his son to excuse the use of the  appartment when he couid have just said I wanted a quieter environment for the whole family leading. He doesn't seem very good at answering questions. Like yesterday with Beth Rigby. 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

thanks for telling me what i can and cant say, i appreciate it.

OK as one of the people who appear to be doing damage control, here's a little fact for you, two of us prominently calling out the bollocks in the media here didn't actually vote Labour and have fundamental disagreements with Labour policy 

We're doing it because the media is lying to you.

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

We're doing it because the media is lying to you.

What is incorrect about the claim Starmer lied about what he was using the wealthy donors house for? 

[bickster]

Just now, Genie said:

What is incorrect about the claim Starmer lied about what he was using the wealthy donors house for? 

read the thread, its already been pointed out when the exams were. He hasn't lied. There were three weeks of exams left after 29th May 

There is no lie

[Genie]

Just now, bickster said:

read the thread, its already been pointed out when the exams were. He hasn't lied. There were three weeks of exams left after 29th May 

There is no lie

He kept using the house for a month after the exams finished didn’t he? And was using it for video messages and interviews it seems.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

He kept using the house for a month after the exams finished didn’t he? And was using it for video messages and interviews it seems.

And was the question asked about why they continued to use the property after the exams had finished. If it was it was edited out of the Rigby interview that I saw

In the middle of a General Election campaign, imagine wanting your teenage kids to be away from the media spotlight.

Again, where is the lie? 

[colhint]

32 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

GCSE exams this year were from 9th May to 19th June. Starmer added the use of the accommodation to the Register of Members' Financial Interests on August 2nd, declaring his use of it from 29th May to 13th July. 

Do you want to have a guess at what was announced a few days before 29th May, which was scheduled to take place a few days before 13th July? That meant Starmer might have preferred a quieter environment for his family for that six week period?

What's the impropriety here as you see it?

Well if he said I want it for some peace and quiet, that would be good. But he didn't be wanted it for his sons exams. So why was he staying there for the best part of a month after they finished. And why did he film his covid film there at Christmas and Also his Queens tribute from there.

[Genie]

Just now, colhint said:

Well if he said I want it for some peace and quiet, that would be good. But he didn't be wanted it for his sons exams. So why was he staying there for the best part of a month after they finished. And why did he film his covid film there at Christmas and Also his Queens tribute from there.

Exactly, I agree with what @MaVillasaid, plenty here happy to do Labours damage control work where they’d have been all over the Tories for doing the same (I voted Labour and I’m extremely disappointed they’ve been taking the piss like they clearly have been).

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Nope your first sentence is wrong and so is most of the rest of what you’ve said.

 

I'm beginning to think your Starmer's new chief whip 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I'm beginning to think ...

I doubt that very much

[foreveryoung]

Just now, bickster said:

I doubt that very much

I just don't take it as serious as some.

[Jareth]

Starmer and others now have access to some serious stately home property for the next five years as perks of the job. They've all got enough cash to buy clothes and specs. Why do they not just come out and state that all gifts are cancelled? (not just clothing).  Draws a line under the whole thing and it gets dropped. 

[MaVilla]

Just now, Jareth said:

Starmer and others now have access to some serious stately home property for the next five years as perks of the job. They've all got enough cash to buy clothes and specs. Why do they not just come out and state that all gifts are cancelled? (not just clothing).  Draws a line under the whole thing and it gets dropped. 

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and pigs can't get their snout out of the trough.

That goes for all political parties and persuasions. 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Why do they not just come out and state that all gifts are cancelled? (not just clothing).  Draws a line under the whole thing and it gets dropped. 

For at least 2 reasons, I'd guess. The first is (in my view) that MPs accepting gifts and/or donations is not in itself "wrong". For example, for a PM, whose spouse is kind of required to fulfil a semi official role at least some of the time - for example state visits, state occasions, conferences, ceremonial occasions and so on, they get no funding from the public purse for their clothes. PMs are not well paid (in comparison to almost any other com parable national leaders) and so it's not unreasonable to accept costs for clothing, for those spouses. The same goes for use of office space, donations for campaigns and so on, and that too saves money for the taxpayer. There are numerous examples. Parties and MPs are not state funded (other than MPs wages) and I think that's how it should be, but then we can't really complain if they raise money through donations, either collectively or for individuals. And then there's stuff like tickets to events, and various "freebies" and perks. I'm kind of OK with that, as long as it's declared and as long as it's not corrupt. If the FA wants to put a view across to the Government on (e.g. a football regulator) it's OK by me that they do so at a game and pay for the MPs or PMs ticket and food or whatever. We don't have a problem with Prince William getting a free seat to watch Villa for time to time, and he's absolutely minted.

None of the above is taking the side of one party or another - clutching pearls at MPs or ministers getting stuff is not for me. It's not in itself corrupt.

The flip side is it needs to be declared, it needs to be avoiding the impression of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It needs to be completely transparent. No favours can be given in return.

There should probably be a limit to the total amount any one donor can give per year, or any one MP can receive per year.

An example from work - we have to declare anything at all given to us on a register and advice is not to refuse anything above (I think) £20 in value. But a mug or a picture or something - fine. But on business away, say going to a supplier - if they provide a meal for the meeting at lunch or whatever, it saves work paying expenses for m'food that day. No problem.

I've much more of an issue with MPs taking multiple jobs actually working for hedge fund/Pharma/whoever - they're on the direct payroll of someone else. An MP working for the NHS or a charity or writing a book, fine - but working for someone in a high paid role is not OK, in my view.

[Chindie]

The donations scandal is a massive own goal that no amount of ah butting is going to help. 

It's bad. 

There's no such thing as a free lunch. It looks even worse when you start to try to hide it - clothes as 'support'. It's bad when Labour does it, it's bad when Tories do it. 

Shysters.