RayC

The newspapers aren't letting this go, so if any rules were broken they will almost certainly be revealed. In the meantime, I'd suggest that 'innocent until proven guilty' should be the maxim rather than the reverse, which currently seems to be the case. Raynor claims that she has been fully transparent https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8vmv1mpggo

That's effectively what we have at present. The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life advises the Prime Minister on arrangements for upholding ethical standards of conduct across public life in England. However, this committee has no regulatory powers and cannot investigate individual complaints. Moreover, it reports to the Parliamentary Ethics Committee, which consists of MPs nominated by their fellow MPs. A clear case of a potential conflict of interests. Imo the powers of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life should be widened to those of a regulator and include investigation. If this were to happen, there would probably be no need for the Parliamentary Ethics Committee and it could be disbanded.

What about the other freebies? Starmer declared them. What donations and gifts did Reeves and Raynor forget to declare? I wouldn't argue with the proposition that this whole episode is unseemly and seedy, but the unspoken implication that it involves dishonesty and corruption is, to date, unproven.

President Putin commented that he has been planning for an invasion in 16 years time and concluded that he needed more cannon fodder. (Note: He didn't really say that)

Starmer didn't declare the cost of a personal shopper and clothes for his wife worth £5k. It's a bit desperate to imply that his claim to have "forgot" (your quotes) is any more than that: It probably was just an oversight. It shouldn't have happened, but it's deserving of a slap on the wrist rather than being hung, drawn and quartered. An independent ethics committee to monitor political donations and gifts isn't a bad idea.

Deleted.

Apart from the startling revelation that American diplomats discuss diplomatic affairs, this conversation proves what exactly?

Then we had best ban any donations and gifts to political parties and MPs to avoid a possible conflict of interests.

Putin has his fellow countrymen's blood on his hands

There has not been any great enthusiasm for Labour since Starmer became leader, and he probably didn't have any great bedrock of support amongst the 3 groups you mention. If I were Starmer I'd also feel absolutely buoyed by the news that I no longer had the support of Owen Jones and Novaro. The overwhelming evidence to date suggests that Starmer is far from weak; in fact, the exact opposite. He can justifiably be accused of being authoritarian. Incompetent? I'd suggest that after less than 3 months in office, it's too early to jump to that conclusion. Hypocritical? Certainly looks like it. A liar? Well Starmer may have lied prior to becoming PM, but what lies have this Labour government told since taking office? Wrt how long Labour MPs will put us with Starmer - assuming no Johnson-like scandals occur - I'd suggest that it will be until at least 2028, unless these MPs see their future in the political wilderness. As I have said previously, unless there is some bombshell of the "Starmer eats babies" type, it is wishful thinking on the part of some, if they think that Starmer will be ousted as PM anytime soon.

So based on a piece of anti-Labour rhetoric from Conservative Central Office's propaganda unit (aka The Daily Telegraph), the Labour Party which has been in power for 3 months, has a parliamentary majority of 174 and does not need to call an election until 2029, is under pressure and is about to ditch its' leader. Sound reasoning or wishful thinking on the part of the anti-Labour lobby?

He may be unfit for political office but not because of his 'colourful' past. You have to question the sanity of anyone who states that, "I have lived in Merthyr all my life; and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else"😁

It says that the proposed measure would be 'consensual and reversible'

That's the problem with DIY fixes. Should've gone to a vet😉

You've misunderstood the gist of the article, which is about Meloni's ability to engage with politicians of all (most?) political persuasions. Still, no surprise there as you appear to view everything as 'black and white', and your default position is confrontational.

Imo that's a pretty fair summary. And TBF to Italy, the rate at which they replace governments has slowed. In the '70s and '80s they appeared to install a new government every 1.11 months!😁

If only Putin had taken your advice we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

If only Putin had taken your advice we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

So the premise is 'Socialism consists of nothing more than Protectionism?' That's it?

I disagree, old bean. While assassinating politicians may be par for the course in the 'New World', we tend to frown upon that type of behaviour in the 'Mother Country'. Bad form, don't you know?

You can get some hints here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_nationality_law#:~:text=Moroccan nationality is typically obtained,period of time through naturalization.

Imo the idea that a PM - Labour or Tory - can be brought for the price of a match day ticket, a decent suit and a pretty frock is ridiculous. That said, this is (yet another) example of a lack of political nous on Starmer's part, and it gives his opponents a stick to beat him with. Starmer can, with some justification, be accused of hypocrisy. Moreover, even if his defence that security dictates he must take match-day hospitality is accepted, it doesn't explain why a couple with a combined income of circa £200k/annum needs to accept gifts of free clothing. Lammy's "defence" that they need to look their best is laughable. Are Mr. & Mrs. Starmer incapable of choosing well-tailored clothes themselves?

It is nothing of the sort. EU efforts to use Russian funds are being stymied by the cuckoo in the nest, Orban.

I was using the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to mean the eradication of a race. As your link explains, the reason(s) behind the expulsion of Germans from the Annexed terrorities did not include purposefully killing Germans. The action may have wrong, inhumane even, but it is hardly comparable to Hitler's 'Final Solution' for the Jews. The Morgenthau Plan was not implemented to any large extent; the Marshall Plan was. The Morgenthau Plan was a US initiative. Churchill was initially opposed to it but was effectively bribed into accepting it. Churchill can be labelled unscrupulous, but he was acting within the context of war and its direct aftermath, and in what he saw as the UK's best interests. "Although Winston Churchill was initially opposed to the idea, he eventually came around, thanks to the US offering the United Kingdom a sizeable Lend-Lease agreement" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/morgenthau-plan.html An alternative view: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign. You didn't. I confused your post with an article. My apologies. To repeat, Churchill was a flawed individual. Outside of the context of WW2, I - and I suspect many (most?) others - would find it difficult to say much good about him. However, within that context, he was a great leader. More to the point, I think that your (implied) contention that Churchill should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin is without any merit.

And yet despite these efforts, we are all still able to access alternative views with relative ease? We are, fortunately, long way from 1984 and thought crimes.