The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

It's a hell of a stretch to describe Isabel Oakeshott as a 'journalist'. 

She's the person in the clip but they were talking about other journalists. There's clearly something not being said. 

 

On another note, did anyone ever find out what happened with Nick Brown and if this is related in any way? 

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Meh, as long as he hasn't done anything worse than batter his mistress with a laptop, we know this is survivable. 

I certainly hope it is survivable because the alternative is Rayner and then God help us all. 

[Gloucester Saint]

17 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

It's a hell of a stretch to describe Isabel Oakeshott as a 'journalist'. 

Quite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Oakeshott

Richard Tice’s partner https://dorseteye.com/for-those-who-care-about-morality-and-the-law-lets-look-closely-at-richard-tice-and-isabel-oakeshott/ and employee of Lord Ashcroft and his non dom money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft

Worth reminding people of the gotcha the Ashcroft clan thought they had on Rayner

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Quite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Oakeshott

Richard Tice’s partner https://dorseteye.com/for-those-who-care-about-morality-and-the-law-lets-look-closely-at-richard-tice-and-isabel-oakeshott/ and employee of Lord Ashcroft and his non dom money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft

Worth reminding people of the gotcha the Ashcroft clan thought they had on Rayner

Again, she was in the video clip but talking about there being an open secret amongst journalists in general. It's been mentioned on social media by other journalists too. It's really the message that's of importance here, not the single messenger. 

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Quite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Oakeshott

Richard Tice’s partner https://dorseteye.com/for-those-who-care-about-morality-and-the-law-lets-look-closely-at-richard-tice-and-isabel-oakeshott/ and employee of Lord Ashcroft and his non dom money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft

Worth reminding people of the gotcha the Ashcroft clan thought they had on Rayner

She a nauseating old slag

[Tamesaint]

58 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Again, she was in the video clip but talking about there being an open secret amongst journalists in general. It's been mentioned on social media by other journalists too. It's really the message that's of importance here, not the single messenger. 

Surely if it is an open secret amongst journalists it would have come out during the General Election. The Tories would have clung to it like a drowning man clinging to a lifebelt in their desperation to slur Starmer. Remember how Currygate was the main headline in the Mail for day after day when there was nothing in that story. They would have issued commemorative booklets if they had a decent story on Starmer. 

Or maybe it isn't as devastating as Oakeshott makes out and heaven forbid, she is telling porkies. 

 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Again, she was in the video clip but talking about there being an open secret amongst journalists in general. It's been mentioned on social media by other journalists too. It's really the message that's of importance here, not the single messenger. 

What is important is whether the 'secret' is based in fact or is just baseless SM rumour being alluded to as a deflection, whataboutery, or in the hope that by simply shaking the tree something has to fall out. ( Nudge, nudge, wink, wink ).

Edited September 28 by badgerx16

[whelk]

Hypo was bemoaning how social media has had such a negative impact on politics. Here is such an example.

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Surely if it is an open secret amongst journalists it would have come out during the General Election. The Tories would have clung to it like a drowning man clinging to a lifebelt in their desperation to slur Starmer. Remember how Currygate was the main headline in the Mail for day after day when there was nothing in that story. They would have issued commemorative booklets if they had a decent story on Starmer. 

Or maybe it isn't as devastating as Oakeshott makes out and heaven forbid, she is telling porkies. 

 

Maybe. Maybe there's a superinjunction. I'm sure it will come out eventually and we can judge for ourselves. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

Hypo was bemoaning how social media has had such a negative impact on politics. Here is such an example.

Maybe so. If and when this so called open secret is out in the open, we will be able to judge. One advantage of social media is that it makes it much harder for dodgy political parties to hide scandals. Remains to be seen if this is a load of nothing or not. 

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Maybe so. If and when this so called open secret is out in the open, we will be able to judge. One advantage of social media is that it makes it much harder for dodgy political parties to hide scandals. Remains to be seen if this is a load of nothing or not. 

And another feature of SM is that it allows the unleashing of unfounded rumour that can be rapidly spread around the globe. Once it is "in the wild" how does the target ever completely kill it dead ?

[CB Fry]

If Kier Starmer had done even half the things that Okeshott has done (fabricated the Cameron pigs head thing for money, betrayed Matt Hancock as a source by leaking his entire Covid communications to the press for money, betraying another source to land Vicky Pryce in jail for money, she's closely connected to Ashcroft a tax dodging bullshitter because hes got money, and so on and so on, all for money). If Starmer had done even one of those things then she and Guido and all the rest would frothing about like it was crime of the century.

I dont think we need any pearl clutching moralising and smearing from that utter piece of shit. The people she knows have far more secrets and skeletons than Starmer has and she knows it.

Personally I think this whole thing is absolutely bullshit and just there to social media ramped up and to seed itself onward. Okeshott saying it on a broadcast channel gives it "legitimacy" that can then be amplified and amplified. Dictionary definition of smear.

Edited September 28 by CB Fry

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

And another feature of SM is that it allows the unleashing of unfounded rumour that can be rapidly spread around the globe. Once it is "in the wild" how does the target ever completely kill it dead ?

I would suggest that Starmer has largely brought this situation on himself. It's now being perpetuated on social media but he only has himself to blame. 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I would suggest that Starmer has largely brought this situation on himself. It's now being perpetuated on social media but he only has himself to blame. 

So, some right wing bullshitter spouts innuendo regarding a supposed affair. How did KS 'bring it on himself' ?

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So, some right wing bullshitter spouts innuendo regarding a supposed affair. How did KS 'bring it on himself' ?

I'm not talking about the individual. She isn't the only one discussing the oddities of the situation regarding Starmer and his benefactor. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Mr Rules does seem to have a problem with his declarations doesn’t he, strange because he told Boris in parliament they were “clear”. Fresh from declaring his Mrs’ clothes late after releasing he’d made a “mistake”,  he’s now had to correct the record for his “office expenses”. 🤔 Wonder what made him suddenly realise  he made  a mistake again. Strange a top lawyer struggles with these details. Fucking hell it’s 32k in office expenses, sorry clothes, now. Fucking hell, he’s a very expensive shoe in for best dressed parliamentarian. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/27/peer-gave-keir-starmer-more-clothes-worth-16000-declared-as-money-for-private-office

[AlexLaw76]

This Lord Alli seems a like top guy.

dishes out thousands upon thousands of ££ worth of gifts for absolutely nothing in return.

Is he also paying the £70k for Big Ange’s photographer?

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Mr Rules does seem to have a problem with his declarations doesn’t he, strange because he told Boris in parliament they were “clear”. Fresh from declaring his Mrs’ clothes late after releasing he’d made a “mistake”,  he’s now had to correct the record for his “office expenses”. 🤔 Wonder what made him suddenly realise  he made  a mistake again. Strange a top lawyer struggles with these details. Fucking hell it’s 32k in office expenses, sorry clothes, now. Fucking hell, he’s a very expensive shoe in for best dressed parliamentarian. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/27/peer-gave-keir-starmer-more-clothes-worth-16000-declared-as-money-for-private-office

Granny harmer, Two tier, free gear, possibly queer? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

possibly queer? 

Would give his poll ratings a boost. 
 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

This Lord Alli seems a like top guy.

dishes out thousands upon thousands of ££ worth of gifts for absolutely nothing in return.

Is he also paying the £70k for Big Ange’s photographer?

 

[Gloucester Saint]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Again, she was in the video clip but talking about there being an open secret amongst journalists in general. It's been mentioned on social media by other journalists too. It's really the message that's of importance here, not the single messenger. 

On Talk TV. Circa 300 viewers where the risk of being challenged is very low. Tim Shipman won’t have been one of those other journalists.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[Lord Duckhunter]

Fastest mp to jump ship in modern times. Blaming their “cruel and unnecessary” winter fuel cut, greed and sleaze. 
 

 

Edited September 28 by Lord Duckhunter

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fastest mp to jump ship in modern times. Blaming their “cruel and unnecessary” winter fuel cut, greed and sleaze. 
 

 

Powerful stuff from her. Doubt it will do anything but biological women have lost a powerful ally in the labour party. 

[The Kraken]

Surprised it took her this long, she’s been publicly agitating against the party for ages, well before the election.  Im almost surprised she stood as a candidate, I guess this way she got herself a seat and a guaranteed salary for 4 years.

Ive long felt that if a candidate switches sides or gives up the whip it should be an automatic bi-election. Not much appetite for it though, I think.

[AlexLaw76]

https://x.com/steviejenkin/status/1840028188434456940?s=46

[Mixedkebab]

Labour are the party FOR the people, represented by the type of guys and gals who know what it’s like for YOU and ME. 
Al the guys who backed them to rebuild Britain and bring back a sense of morality are bang on. Those guys care about us. Ange, Keir, Yvette,

Hey guys, they will all do us a solid. Stand back and let them cook 

Edited September 28 by Mixedkebab

[Gloucester Saint]

9 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

Labour are the party FOR the people, represented by the type of guys and gals who know what it’s like for YOU and ME. 
Al the guys who backed them to rebuild Britain and bring back a sense of morality are bang on. Those guys care about us. Ange, Keir, Yvette,

Hey guys, they will all do us a solid. Stand back and let them cook 

Don’t know about that, but the previous government’s dickhead move to try and appeal to Reform UK/ex-BNP voters by restricting overseas student visas just cost £15bn in guaranteed tax revenue according to an article by the FT posted by former Conservative minister Jo Johnson, who along with Rachel is the one in the family whom the brains were dished out to.

Which would have made this budget a darn sight easier.

How’s the kebab tasting now?

Edited September 29 by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

Whatever your political views, have a watch of this. No disrespect to Starmer or Rayner, but along with Wes Streeting, Darren Jones and Andy Burnham, this is where the talent in the Labour Party is

 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

9 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Whatever your political views, have a watch of this. No disrespect to Starmer or Rayner, but along with Wes Streeting, Darren Jones and Andy Burnham, this is where the talent in the Labour Party is

 

Seems like a good bloke but has he ever done a proper job?

Edited September 29 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

xx

Edited September 29 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[whelk]

18 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

Labour are the party FOR the people, represented by the type of guys and gals who know what it’s like for YOU and ME. 
Al the guys who backed them to rebuild Britain and bring back a sense of morality are bang on. Those guys care about us. Ange, Keir, Yvette,

Hey guys, they will all do us a solid. Stand back and let them cook 

You seem a little obsessed with Ange 

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Seems like a good bloke but has he ever done a proper job?

That’s his resume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Bell

TBF, you could say the same about most politicians since the mid-00s, bar Sunak and Starmer of the current crop and May from the previous. If and when Burnham and Street come into the HoC it’ll help. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Starmer paying back £6k of gifts, and Lord Ali being investigated.

Disappointing to see them involved in this sort of thing. As disappointing for it to have to go on for so long, as they fail to see what the decent thing to do is.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Starmer paying back £6k of gifts, and Lord Ali being investigated.

Disappointing to see them involved in this sort of thing. As disappointing for it to have to go on for so long, as they fail to see what the decent thing to do is.

Starmer seems to think it's acceptable to accept these donations as leader of the opposition but not as pm which is an odd stance. He also only came to this realisation today and not before he had already accepted the donations. How about setting a precedent that no prime minister accepts any donations ever. Do what you like once you leave office and coin it in for the rest of your life but no risk of undue influence whilst in power. Seems fair to me. 

Edited October 2 by hypochondriac

[Holmes_and_Watson]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Starmer seems to think it's acceptable to accept these donations as leader of the opposition but not as pm which is an odd stance. He also only came to this realisation today and not before he had already accepted the donations. How about setting a precedent that no prime minister accepts any donations ever. Do what you like once you leave office and coin it in for the rest of your life but no risk of undue influence whilst in power. Seems fair to me. 

Sadly, the revolving door between government and industry means any number are already compromised, well before they leave office, and happen to end up in the companies who lobbied them.

[Gloucester Saint]

40 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Sadly, the revolving door between government and industry means any number are already compromised, well before they leave office, and happen to end up in the companies who lobbied them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578838

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/petrosaudi-tony-blair-emails-oil-company-chinese

[hypochondriac]

41 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Sadly, the revolving door between government and industry means any number are already compromised, well before they leave office, and happen to end up in the companies who lobbied them.

Yes you're quite correct. Nothing at all to stop companies promising things after leaving office in return for favours now. Banning freebies for pm is a gesture more than anything and would at least stop the more obvious piss takes. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578838

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/petrosaudi-tony-blair-emails-oil-company-chinese

Quite. Like I said they're all at it. 

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Quite. Like I said they're all at it. 

And on a human level I get it as well. They either get booted out by the electorate or their own party. Labour couldn’t beat Thatcher but beat herself with the poll tax and her own party pulled the 🔪, Cameron was effectively unseated by the referendum, the only one who wasn’t was Blair although his neighbour at No 11 made life rather uncomfortable over what/wasn't said over a dinner in the 1990s.

Politics makes even football management look sane.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

And on a human level I get it as well. They either get booted out by the electorate or their own party. Labour couldn’t beat Thatcher but beat herself with the poll tax and her own party pulled the 🔪, Cameron was effectively unseated by the referendum, the only one who wasn’t was Blair although his neighbour at No 11 made life rather uncomfortable over what/wasn't said over a dinner in the 1990s.

Politics makes even football management look sane.

That would be more understandable if these people weren't already millionaires. On another note this could get interesting - understand the messenger isn't the most reliable but if it is true then surely a matter of time until it breaks. 

[Gloucester Saint]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That would be more understandable if these people weren't already millionaires. On another note this could get interesting - understand the messenger isn't the most reliable but if it is true then surely a matter of time until it breaks. 

Said it yourself, it’s Guido, and last weekend it was Tice’s missus.

Early on the Blair years the Mail were convinced they had a gotcha with a story about the Blair’s nanny and in the end it amounted to a wet fart https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/11/1

If one of the other papers like the Guardian or especially the Mirror thought they were going to get there first they’d publish it. Also, the Mail and DT would be wetting themselves silly with anticipation and couldn’t help dropping front page hints.

Never say never, but it feels unlikely.

Edited October 2 by Gloucester Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

That would be more understandable if these people weren't already millionaires. On another note this could get interesting - understand the messenger isn't the most reliable but if it is true then surely a matter of time until it breaks. 

Not sure anyone will care, we're all used to the sleaze after Boris.

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not sure anyone will care, we're all used to the sleaze after Boris.

I think you’ll find some people will care. Some people have been incandescent with rage over politicians private lives so itll be very interesting if they apply similar standards should any news like the above break. 👀👀👀👀👀

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not sure anyone will care, we're all used to the sleaze after Boris.

I think people will care. Does anyone remember the journalists shouting at Johnson asking how many children he has? 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Today's news has brave Sir Keir pioneering a new scheme, because it was just so darned awkward to know what the right thing to do was.

'The prime minister said his government would bring forward new principles for donations "as until now politicians have used their best individual judgement to decide".'

Considering every major company has a straightforward gifts and hospitality procedure, and MPs went through an expenses scandal, this is laughable.

They all wanted to keep as many troughing entitlements as possible. They thought that simply registering them, avoiding the worst red flags, would be enough. After all, those were the new troughing rules. So, they must be fine.

No contrition, no accountability. Starmer is very selective on what's being paid back. The quote is that he is "right" to pay it back, never that he was "wrong" to be claiming it in the first place.

I saw Rayner's paid for Ibiza trip appearing again. That went quiet after Labour turned it into a class argument.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What’s he paying it back for? 

If it’s because he shouldn’t have taken them, then why isn’t he paying similar gifts back. Taylor Swift, but not Arsenal, his Mrs clothes, but not his glasses? If he’s paying particular freebies back because of the influence implications, why not everything from that person.  weird, it’s almost as if they think by paying a few grand back people will stop asking questions. Do they really think “it was right, but I’m paying a little bit back and it’ll now be wrong” is a line that will hold. Forget the apparent freeloading, the management of this story has been fuvking amateurish in the extreme. 
 

Andy Burnham talked the most sense, said he receives invites  occasionally, and some cross over into the grey area of work related/enjoyment. He gives 15% of his salary to local charities, which more than covers any that people may perceive as not work related. A sensible approach imo. 

[whelk]

Starmer’s biggest problem is he doesn’t appear to have a backbone and seems to want to ask people what is the right thing - not just with this freebie stuff but noticed in other situations. Public don’t necessarily expect saints but equally will have less respect for dithering and weakness. If he just said yeah realised all a bit over the top and is now stopping hardly anyone would care - well the Daily Mail and a few on Saintsweb if course
 

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Starmer’s biggest problem is he doesn’t appear to have a backbone and seems to want to ask people what is the right thing - not just with this freebie stuff but noticed in other situations. Public don’t necessarily expect saints but equally will have less respect for dithering and weakness. If he just said yeah realised all a bit over the top and is now stopping hardly anyone would care - well the Daily Mail and a few on Saintsweb if course
 

I think it’s good it’s all getting some air time. I’ve thought for ages that gifts in politics is just legalised corruption, and as I’ve referenced before by Ian Hislop at Select Committee: what do you think they’re paying for? It’s not necessarily a Tory/Labour thing, it’s been going on for decades. Previously it would get a bit of press interest but Boris broke the mould a bit, he just had a few pals in the media who egged along the whole “what a cad he is, arf” bollocks and it never got massive traction. Under Starmer it’s now getting more air time in the media and definitely a few on here have sat up and suddenly taken interest, that’s for sure, but I won’t bemoan that. Legalised gifting to those in power is eminently grubby.

Edit. And to be clear, one of the bigger reasons I voted Labour this time round was to get rid of the many years of corruption and backhanders enabled by the blue lot in power. I hoped Starmer and his brigade would be better, but it’s a bad start. I think they’ve got many super marathons to go to catch up with the level that the Conservative Party hit, but one shouldn’t go comparison shopping when discussing these things, what’s obviously wrong is, well, obviously wrong. That MPs have managed to write the laws for themselves this way and have said year after year after year “ it’s in the rules” is quite disgusting.

Edited October 3 by The Kraken

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

I think it’s good it’s all getting some air time. I’ve thought for ages that gifts in politics is just legalised corruption, and as I’ve referenced before by Ian Hislop at Select Committee: what do you think they’re paying for? It’s not necessarily a Tory/Labour thing, it’s been going on for decades. Previously it would get a bit of press interest but Boris broke the mould a bit, he just had a few pals in the media who egged along the whole “what a cad he is, arf” bollocks and it never got massive traction. Under Starmer it’s now getting more air time in the media and definitely a few on here have sat up and suddenly taken interest, that’s for sure, but I won’t bemoan that. Legalised gifting to those in power is eminently grubby.

Edit. And to be clear, one of the bigger reasons I voted Labour this time round was to get rid of the many years of corruption and backhanders enabled by the blue lot in power. I hoped Starmer and his brigade would be better, but it’s a bad start. I think they’ve got many super marathons to go to catch up with the level that the Conservative Party hit, but one shouldn’t go comparison shopping when discussing these things, what’s obviously wrong is, well, obviously wrong. That MPs have managed to write the laws for themselves this way and have said year after year after year “ it’s in the rules” is quite disgusting.

Well done for calling it out. Like you say it's wrong no matter what party engages in it. Hopefully there can be more clearly defined boundaries because asking them to mark their own homework isn't working.