Jump to content

The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

sadoldgit

By sadoldgit
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 10:06, badgerx16 said:

She plead guilty to making a false report to the Police, inventing a false 'vicious' mugging to cover having lost her work phone, ( which it turns out wasn't lost ).

So yes, she did.

Expand  

I didn’t know that she had invented the mugging. Still not the worse thing in the world under the circumstances and people have stayed in post for worse.

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can’t find anything to say that she hadn’t actually been mugged. Only that the work phone was reported as one of the items stolen and then it was found at home?

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 29/11/2024 at 11:06, The Kraken said:

Which is a completely different point. The quoted bit was made by Kier Starmer. Who isn’t a Tory.

Expand  

My point is that the Tories are now trying to minimise their own constant and more serious  wrongdoing by jumping on the most minor indiscretions by Labour. What she did was 11 years ago, she wasn’t in post. Do you honestly think that Starmer would have gone after a Tory MP if they had done the same thing 11 years ago and before the were elected? 
I think that we both understand that Starmer’s point was that the people he was referring to were currently in post and breaking the law, therefore some Tories could be both lawmakers and lawbreakers in their own world.

You can’t be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker…unless you are a Tory.

Get it? I know the resident narcissist will have trouble with it though.

Edited by sadoldgit
  • Haha 1
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 11:16, sadoldgit said:

I can’t find anything to say that she hadn’t actually been mugged. Only that the work phone was reported as one of the items stolen and then it was found at home?

Expand  

The BBC have now changed the wording of their report to clarify that the mugging did acually take place, and only the additional claim of the phone being stolen was fabrication. It seems her biggest error was not correcting her story when she found the phone.

  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 29/11/2024 at 11:41, The Kraken said:

No.

I think your original reply of “I know it was nothing to do with it, thanks” was better, before that modified word salad made its way into print.

Expand  

I was making another point, thanks. Starmer’s point is that you can’t be both. My point is that you can if you are a Tory, apparently.

By the way Haig doesn’t have a criminal conviction against her name.

Edited by sadoldgit
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 10:59, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t know that she had invented the mugging. Still not the worse thing in the world under the circumstances and people have stayed in post for worse.

Expand  

Given that's the phrase you've used to describe distribution of child rape, I'm not sure I'd be trusting your judgement on that. 

  • Like 1
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 29/11/2024 at 10:55, sadoldgit said:

Other than you can be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker if you are a Tory.

Expand  

Or Labour.

I believe she has only resigned from her ministerial position and is still an MP (this may have changed since this morning?).

Therefore she is both a lawbreaker and law maker is she not?

For the record, I'm not saying she should resign from either post. The indiscretion was so minor that she received literally no sentence. It was also so long ago that it has been 'spent' so shouldn't even appear as a criminal conviction - in the same way that points come off your licence after time...

Edited by Weston Super Saint
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

Louise Haigh is my local MP, and a very good one in that regard - she does a lot for the community and doesn't shy away from appearing at events. I even met her once at a local festival.

I'm wondering if maybe this conviction is just a cover story, and that she's actually been forced out over something else entirely (like her comments about P&O nearly putting the kybosh on some planned investment), but Starmer has given her the opportunity to resign over something relatively minor in order to present a facade of decency and standards in public office that can be used as a stick to beat the opposition with.

  • Like 1
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 12:39, Sheaf Saint said:

Louise Haigh is my local MP, and a very good one in that regard - she does a lot for the community and doesn't shy away from appearing at events. I even met her once at a local festival.

I'm wondering if maybe this conviction is just a cover story, and that she's actually been forced out over something else entirely (like her comments about P&O nearly putting the kybosh on some planned investment), but Starmer has given her the opportunity to resign over something relatively minor in order to present a facade of decency and standards in public office that can be used as a stick to beat the opposition with.

Expand  

I had exactly the same thought when I saw the headline - I posted on here that I thought she was toast after the DP World incident. 

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 11:17, sadoldgit said:

My point is that the Tories are now trying to minimise their own constant and more serious  wrongdoing by jumping on the most minor indiscretions by Labour. What she did was 11 years ago, she wasn’t in post. Do you honestly think that Starmer would have gone after a Tory MP if they had done the same thing 11 years ago and before the were elected? 
I think that we both understand that Starmer’s point was that the people he was referring to were currently in post and breaking the law, therefore some Tories could be both lawmakers and lawbreakers in their own world.

You can’t be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker…unless you are a Tory.

Get it? I know the resident narcissist will have trouble with it though.

Expand  

Yes you are aren't you. 

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 12:39, Sheaf Saint said:

Louise Haigh is my local MP, and a very good one in that regard - she does a lot for the community and doesn't shy away from appearing at events. I even met her once at a local festival.

I'm wondering if maybe this conviction is just a cover story, and that she's actually been forced out over something else entirely (like her comments about P&O nearly putting the kybosh on some planned investment), but Starmer has given her the opportunity to resign over something relatively minor in order to present a facade of decency and standards in public office that can be used as a stick to beat the opposition with.

Expand  

From what I picked up on it, she left Aviva before or during the opening of an internal investigation. While the phone turned out to still be in her possession, there's lots of data protection issues involved. Then there are the missed opportunities to say it had turned up. The decision making there, raises it's own issues. It sounds as though she would have been fighting dismissal. She ended up with a fraud conviction rather than deciding on transparency after what instigated that incident, a mugging.

The press are indicating that it wasn't the first time, and there may have been other incidents. While PM knew of the conviction, the radio said that there was new information (presumably the other incidents), which is why she stepped down. The conviction is spent and she's still an MP, I've not heard of anything of an ongoing criminal investigation so the government will be looking at this as a quick, clear process.

Following her quotes on P&O and others, no doubt there are some in her party that won't be shedding any tears.

 

  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 12:39, Sheaf Saint said:

Louise Haigh is my local MP, and a very good one in that regard - she does a lot for the community and doesn't shy away from appearing at events. I even met her once at a local festival.

I'm wondering if maybe this conviction is just a cover story, and that she's actually been forced out over something else entirely (like her comments about P&O nearly putting the kybosh on some planned investment), but Starmer has given her the opportunity to resign over something relatively minor in order to present a facade of decency and standards in public office that can be used as a stick to beat the opposition with.

Expand  

There have been a lot of positive comments about what she has achieved so far and even some suggestions that she will get another high profile job eventually.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
  On 29/11/2024 at 22:49, Holmes_and_Watson said:

From what I picked up on it, she left Aviva before or during the opening of an internal investigation. While the phone turned out to still be in her possession, there's lots of data protection issues involved. Then there are the missed opportunities to say it had turned up. The decision making there, raises it's own issues. It sounds as though she would have been fighting dismissal. She ended up with a fraud conviction rather than deciding on transparency after what instigated that incident, a mugging.

The press are indicating that it wasn't the first time, and there may have been other incidents. While PM knew of the conviction, the radio said that there was new information (presumably the other incidents), which is why she stepped down. The conviction is spent and she's still an MP, I've not heard of anything of an ongoing criminal investigation so the government will be looking at this as a quick, clear process.

Following her quotes on P&O and others, no doubt there are some in her party that won't be shedding any tears.

 

Expand  

Sounds like the major reason she was let go was because she didn't tell the whole truth to Starmer from the outset like you said. 

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 08:04, Weston Super Saint said:

Apparently she declared the conviction on her appointment as an MP, but not when she was given a ministerial role.

Expand  

Seems odd that she'd need to repeat the disclosure. Personally I'd have binned her after the naive P&O comments. 

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

She was right about P&O, but we can’t have government ministers telling us what they really think. Look at the trouble Lammy got himself into after saying what many people think about Trump! 

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 09:39, sadoldgit said:

She was right about P&O, but we can’t have government ministers telling us what they really think. Look at the trouble Lammy got himself into after saying what many people think about Trump! 

Expand  

I'm becoming more convinced by the day that you're on a wind up. 

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

I am being very judgemental but Haigh looks like an over promoted public sector manager who is more concerned about messaging than decisions of substance. Based on fck all of course.

agree with her about P&O as well. I wouldn’t knowingly use those cunts 

  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 10:28, egg said:

I'm becoming more convinced by the day that you're on a wind up. 

Expand  

Why? Do you think that what P&O did was ok? I seem to remember plenty of Labour MPs kicking off about it at the time, including the current  Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and why wouldn’t they? I also many derogatory remarks made by Labour MPs about Trump.

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 12:59, sadoldgit said:

Why? Do you think that what P&O did was ok? I seem to remember plenty of Labour MPs kicking off about it at the time, including the current  Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and why wouldn’t they? I also many derogatory remarks made by Labour MPs about Trump.

Expand  

P&O broke the law.

P&O admitted they broke the law, even in front of a select committee.

P&O compensated every single worker because they broke the law and paid them more than they would have got had they gone through the tribunal process.

Only 1 person didn't accept the offer that P&O made. He won his tribunal case - P&O didn't even offer a defence, instead admitting (again) that they broke the law. The guy then got less than if he'd accepted the initial offer.

Don't think I've seen anyone claiming what they did was right. Even P&O said it wasn't.

Your point seems to be totally moot.

  • Confused 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 14:44, Weston Super Saint said:

P&O broke the law.

P&O admitted they broke the law, even in front of a select committee.

P&O compensated every single worker because they broke the law and paid them more than they would have got had they gone through the tribunal process.

Only 1 person didn't accept the offer that P&O made. He won his tribunal case - P&O didn't even offer a defence, instead admitting (again) that they broke the law. The guy then got less than if he'd accepted the initial offer.

Don't think I've seen anyone claiming what they did was right. Even P&O said it wasn't.

Your point seems to be totally moot.

Expand  

My point is that what P&O did was wrong and that it would have been surprising if Labour hadn’t kicked off about it. Why is the point moot?

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 16:54, sadoldgit said:

My point is that what P&O did was wrong and that it would have been surprising if Labour hadn’t kicked off about it. Why is the point moot?

Expand  

Because everyone knows they did it, both sides of the house condemned them for it and they put their hands up and said it was wrong.

It wasn't the left v right issue that you are making it out to be where the left are virtuous and wholesome and the right are baby eating vagabonds.

Therefore your point is moot.

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
  On 30/11/2024 at 12:59, sadoldgit said:

Why? Do you think that what P&O did was ok? I seem to remember plenty of Labour MPs kicking off about it at the time, including the current  Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and why wouldn’t they? I also many derogatory remarks made by Labour MPs about Trump.

Expand  

P&O were wrong but she was a minister of state and her job was to act in the interests of the state, not express her personal opinion. It's not hard to comprehend.  

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Of course I understand it egg. I do agree with you but I also think that it is refreshing to see a politician say what they think rather than stick to political expediency. It’s all about money at the end of the day though and I don’t think P&O or Donald Trump would pass up an opportunity to make money over some uncomplimentary remarks. 

  • Haha 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
  On 01/12/2024 at 11:31, Weston Super Saint said:

It was a bursary.  If it was paid for by the state it would have been available to everyone, it wasn't.

Expand  

Bursary is still financial. Who do you think funded it? Anyway CBA with your pedantry, Campbell’s comment stands. 

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
  On 01/12/2024 at 11:31, Weston Super Saint said:

It was a bursary.  If it was paid for by the state it would have been available to everyone, it wasn't.

Expand  

It was available to "everyone" as the "everyone" in this case was existing pupils of that school at the point it went private to the end of their education. Part of the process of converting to a fee paying school.

Kier Starmer wasn't singled out and not under his control what the school and the council did while he was there. 

  • Like 3
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 01/12/2024 at 12:09, CB Fry said:

It was available to "everyone" as the "everyone" in this case was existing pupils of that school at the point it went private to the end of their education. Part of the process of converting to a fee paying school.

Kier Starmer wasn't singled out and not under his control what the school and the council did while he was there. 

Expand  

I figured it would be something like that.

He benefited from a private education, paid for by the state. Fair play to him.

I'm not criticising him and it makes no difference where he was educated. Just pointing out that Alistair Campbell is wrong. Again.

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 01/12/2024 at 12:17, Weston Super Saint said:

I figured it would be something like that.

He benefited from a private education, paid for by the state. Fair play to him.

I'm not criticising him and it makes no difference where he was educated. Just pointing out that Alistair Campbell is wrong. 

Expand  
Edited by sadoldgit
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
  On 01/12/2024 at 14:00, sadoldgit said:

Is he wrong though? If the state paid for his education surely he has been state educated?

Expand  

Does it fucking matter? 
 

Who give a flying fuck where people are educated, all that matters is what they do in office, and so far he’s failing to impress. 

  • Like 2
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
  On 01/12/2024 at 14:09, Lord Duckhunter said:

Does it fucking matter? 
 

Who give a flying fuck where people are educated, all that matters is what they do in office, and so far he’s failing to impress. 

Expand  

The only way that he could ever impress you Duckie would be if he returned as a living reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher. 😁😁😁

  • Haha 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...