The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Turkish]

16 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

 

That literally makes no sense whatsoever to the post you were responding to.

You seem surprised

[sadoldgit]

49 minutes ago, 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.

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.

[The Kraken]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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

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

[The Kraken]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You seem surprised

I shouldn’t be, I know.

[sadoldgit]

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]

33 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

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

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 29 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[The Kraken]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Get it?

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.

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, 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?

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.

[sadoldgit]

13 minutes ago, 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.

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 29 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, 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.

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. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

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

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 29 November, 2024 by Weston Super Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

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.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, 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.

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]

1 hour ago, 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.

Yes you are aren't you. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

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?

Yes

[Holmes_and_Watson]

9 hours ago, 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.

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.

 

[sadoldgit]

10 hours ago, 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.

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]

1 hour ago, 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.

 

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. 

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

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

[egg]

49 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

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

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

[sadoldgit]

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! 

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

we can’t have government ministers telling us what they really think. 

[egg]

49 minutes ago, 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! 

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

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

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

Nah he’s been like it for years across multiple forums. He’s just a complete and utter cock 

[whelk]

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 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Seems odd that she'd need to repeat the disclosure. 

Indeed, especially as the conviction was technically 'spent' the minute it was given.

I believe the law only requires declaration of 'unspent' convictions.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

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

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]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

[sadoldgit]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/29/how-labour-insiders-trying-depose-louise-haigh/

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, 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.

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]

29 minutes ago, 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?

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]

5 hours ago, 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.

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]

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. 

[Turkish]

Is this true?

 

[whelk]

12 hours ago, Turkish said:

Is this true?

 

Sound healthy - to post now then I assume Haigh went to private school?

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Sound healthy - to post now then I assume Haigh went to private school?

Yes.

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Yes.

Just looked it up 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Yes.

No.

Starmer is part of the cabinet.

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

No.

Starmer is part of the cabinet.

He went to a grammar school

[sadoldgit]

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/cabinet/

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

He went to a grammar school

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gd5pkv331o

Quote

After passing the 11-plus exam, Sir Keir joined Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school two years later.

His fees were paid by the council until he was 16.

 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Quote

His fees were paid by the council until he was 16.

 

Funded by council could be viewed as paid for by the state

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Funded by council could be viewed as paid for by the state

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

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, 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.

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

[CB Fry]

33 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, 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. 

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]

1 hour ago, 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. 

Edited 1 December, 2024 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

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

Edited 1 December, 2024 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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

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. 

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, 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. 

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