3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A bit of hatred towards the working class going on there.

Are politicians " working class" ?    

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

So we've diverted to the source, and now we are diverting to Fox news and Trump. 😄

 

I'll try for the third time. What about Starmer's conflict of interest accepting gifts from Premier League clubs?

Lets be honest about it , for anybody in his position , along with any other people of influence  accepting anything  from anybody ever, is  clearly a potential conflict of interest  As I said in a previous post, would anybody  ever consider offering anything  to anyone  of influence  if it  could only be done anonymously ?  very very few in my opinion, What would be the point?

52 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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

 

That's one option.

 

Or maybe Starmer could declare them as per the rules. And not claim to "forget". Then we could have an independent body that assessed whether such a donation created a conflict of interest or was essentially a bribe. 

6 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

accepting anything  from anybody ever, is  clearly a potential conflict of interest 

Of course it is and should be stopped immediately for all of them

(politicians)  it's even worse considering he and wife are not impoverished  pensioners  wondering where their next heating bill payment is coming from   quite disgusting really free gear Kier,two tier kier both very apt names for a horrid specimen.

9 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Lets be honest about it , for anybody in his position , along with any other people of influence  accepting anything  from anybody ever, is  clearly a potential conflict of interest  As I said in a previous post, would anybody  ever consider offering anything  to anyone  of influence  if it  could only be done anonymously ?  very very few in my opinion, What would be the point?

 

Agree. These "donations" are essentially bribes in 99% of cases. 

26 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Are politicians " working class" ?    

 

Very few.

 

A minority have working class roots, but it's hard to argue that someone on an MP's salary with multiple perks, second home allowances, accepts expensive gifts from lords etc. is truly working class. Especially when they appear to hate anyone that is proud of their country, enjoys a cigarette in the pub garden on a Friday night, drives a white van, flies their countries flag during the World Cup, wishes to preserve their own culture, wants their own countrymen to take precedence over illegal immigrants, wants sovereignty from the EU etc.

 

Labour in particular seem to have a disdain/disregard for white, working class people. Especially pensioners. 

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Or maybe  simply make a rule that states all donations need to be,and remain anonymous, putting it into practice might be challenging, but not for long  . All the donations would soon dry up once the sponsors realised they had nothing to gain.

 

Deleted. 

Edited September 23, 20241 yr by RayC
Initially misread the post

28 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Agree. These "donations" are essentially bribes in 99% of cases. 

 

After 14 years of rampant, unchecked tory corruption, it's certainly dispiriting to see Labour MPs being every bit as despicable. 

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's one option.

 

Or maybe Starmer could declare them as per the rules. And not claim to "forget". Then we could have an independent body that assessed whether such a donation created a conflict of interest or was essentially a bribe. 

 

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.

27 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

What about the other freebies? 

 

What about Reeves and Raynor? Did they forget?

 

It's a bit worrying that the three most senior members of UK government have such bad memories.

50 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

After 14 years of rampant, unchecked tory corruption, it's certainly dispiriting to see Labour MPs being every bit as despicable. 

well its certainly not surprising,  They are after all  exactly the same,  

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

I hardly think we need yet another committee,  the next thing we will need is a committee to monitor that committee and the gifts they receive and so on ad infinitum 

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

What about the other freebies? 

 

What about Reeves and Raynor? Did they forget?

 

It's a bit worrying that the three most senior members of UK government have such bad memories.

 

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.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Agree. These "donations" are essentially bribes in 99% of cases. 

I am more cynical, I would say 100% why else would anybody give them anything.    With respect to donations and gifts they should be treated in exactly the same way as the police.

Declaring these bribes officially is nothing more than a charade,  its as if once they admit to it , all is ok and above board.

"yes we received £100,000 from "whoever" but no need to worry as we've told you about it,  now move along nothing to see here 

8 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

well its certainly not surprising,  They are after all  exactly the same,  

 

And most likely not new either. I have no doubts that almost all MPs of all persuasions are at it in some way or other, and will have been since each of them entered politics. 

 

Either we accept it is forever to be part of politics, or the rules need totally rewriting, and not in some half baked token effort designed to placate the plebs while protecting the guilty. I vote for the latter. 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

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.

there is rarely smoke without fire , lets not forget what sort of people we are talking about.  

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

Time will tell.

 

Raynor "forgOt" to declared she shared the apartment in New York.

8 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I hardly think we need yet another committee,  the next thing we will need is a committee to monitor that committee and the gifts they receive and so on ad infinitum 

 

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.

 

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

And most likely not new either. I have no doubts that almost all MPs of all persuasions are at it in some way or other, and will have been since each of them entered politics. 

 

Either we accept it is forever to be part of politics, or the rules need totally rewriting, and not in some half baked token effort designed to placate the plebs while protecting the guilty. I vote for the latter. 

you are absolutely correct.     However I  i do think that some newcomers may actually start off with the best of intentions,   But will be short lived,   they are  quickly   taken to one side by one of the others and told not to "rock the boat" if they wish to remain part of the "family"      To my knowledge there have been very few if any whistle blowers in the house of commons from  either side

 A complete overhaul is as you say  long overdue  but very unlikely from  the people that are even allowed to decide for  themselves how large their annual pay increases are

 The amount of sleaze involved was highlighted several years ago with the expenses scandal , who could forget the arrogance of those who simply refused to accept their obvious guilt.  it should have been sorted then , but unsurprisingly little if anything changed.  

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Time will tell.

 

Raynor "forgOt" to declared she shared the apartment in New York.

 

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

 

 

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

I suppose in a way we have to hand it to them , they have it all sewn up very nicely,   

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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

 

 

I agree, so long as it refers to everyone. 

 

There have been posts referring to "billions of pounds" of corruption by the previous government but no guilty verdicts. 

 

"Innocent until proven guilty" must refer to all, if that the way you want it.

Edited September 23, 20241 yr by youreavinalaff

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I agree, so long as it refers to everyone. 

 

There have been posts referring to "billions of pounds" of corruption by the previous government but no guilty verdicts. 

 

"Innocent until proven guilty" must refer to all, if that the way you want it.

 

Indeed. But equally there is no reason why that should exclude highlighting the coincidences which were visible in some of the previous government's business dealings.

Labour or Tory they are all the same ,   just different cheeks of the same $hitty Ar$e   

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Indeed. But equally there is no reason why that should exclude highlighting the coincidences which were visible in some of the previous government's business dealings.

Or the coincidences visible in this government's dealings.

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Are politicians " working class" ?    

Why on earth wouldn’t a working class person who becomes an MP still be working class?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why on earth wouldn’t a working class person who becomes an MP still be working class?

Why on earth would they?     

 An example,     many years ago on a construction site I was working on we had endless issues with a bolshy militant member of the labour force, he was the union rep too or shop steward as we used to call them in those days.  He would complain about everything  from the timing of tea breaks , working hours, bonuses , disciplinary matters, etc etc  on several occasions he almost shut the site down,  attempting to persuade the rest of the work force to strike over very trivial matters. 

The site manager came up with a rather innovative solution,   he promoted him to forman,  we thought this was a crazy idea, but how wrong we were, the guy changed literally overnight, becoming a hard task master who would not tolerate any of the nonsense he used to be notorious  for.   

People  forget their "principals" very quickly when it suits them,  in my experience 

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Why on earth would they?     

 An example,     many years ago on a construction site I was working on we had endless issues with a bolshy militant member of the labour force, he was the union rep too or shop steward as we used to call them in those days.  He would complain about everything  from the timing of tea breaks , working hours, bonuses , disciplinary matters, etc etc  on several occasions he almost shut the site down,  attempting to persuade the rest of the work force to strike over very trivial matters. 

The site manager came up with a rather innovative solution,   he promoted him to forman,  we thought this was a crazy idea, but how wrong we were, the guy changed literally overnight, becoming a hard task master who would not tolerate any of the nonsense he used to be notorious  for.   

People  forget their "principals" very quickly when it suits them,  in my experience 

Which addresses ‘working class’ how?

Free clothes?  Noooo!

 

Million pound "after dinner speeches" to a company that you did favours for while in power?  Yesss!

 

🙄

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which addresses ‘working class’ how?

maybe I have misunderstood your definition of working class,  however I'm sure you know fullwell what I meant