Scared of what labour will do

@Kittygolightlyy "Why do Labour faithful always assume anyone who isn’t obviously a Labour fan, is a Tory"

I don't think we do, do we? I try not to, although it usually pretty obvious.

The poster i highlighted said earlier they were a Tory.... but thankyou for your concern

I note you assume i'm a Labour faithful lol!

Traditionally, Labour governments have actually been better for the services, or they used to be before the Cold War ended. However, 1989 is a long time ago now.

IMO one of the problems is that then, most poiticians either had personal knowledge of military service or would have known people who did, because the services were so much larger, and of course from National Service. There are only a handful of those left.

Why do Labour faithful always assume anyone who isn’t obviously a Labour fan, is a Tory. Peculiar. Mental models don’t allow any other option. So juvenile.

...but they didn't... as i said to another pp, its all irrelevant.

I did believe, after our sensible discussion on private rent, there were serious Tory supporting posters on here... you might note that i never once said "IF labour had won in 2015, we'd have more council houses...."

Talking of dereliction of duty, it's just as well JC didn't win the election in 2019. Or is that irrelevant because it didn't happen? What if it had though?

Defence spend over the last 14 years is very relevant, its takes many years to build up military capacity but only a stroke of a pen to reduce it.

We all saw the danger in 2014, the Tories ignored this and carried on taking donations from Russia.

Perhaps Crimea seemed a long way away?

But Ukraine was 3 years ago, yet again they ignored the threat.... the Tories were in power for 2.5 years of that and failed to increase defence spend.. Labour have been in for only 7 months but now a firm plan to increase to 2.5%.

Dereliction of duty, first objective of Govt is the security of the country.... yet Tory supporters divert to a Linkedin profile...

Do they? When have they said that? Link if you would be so kind!

It would be counter productive to means test the SP.

fullfact.org/economy/state-pension-means-testing/

Katypp
You either say the past is irrelevant or you say it isn't.

I link to past articles for all parties.

@Katypp There is relevance in talking about "the last 14 years" because it directly informs what is happening now, and impacts on the speed of change. It's impossible to draw a line under the last administration's distraction and never speak of it again.

Rather different to talking about what was happening in 2015!

Because Alexandra2001 posted;

'a travesty after 2014, we knew what we were dealing with'

I looked to see if Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband were as knowlegable as Alexandra2001 - apparently not.

Why are we dredging up Tory spending on defence prior to 2015? And banging on about 'the last 14 years'?
You can't have it both ways.
You either say the past is irrelevant or you say it isn't.
You can't say it's only irrelevant when it shows Labour in a bad light.

@Clavinova -why are you quoting guardian articles from 2015?

Which party did you vote for in 2015?

Lol! 10/10 for effort Clav, 0/10 for relevance... unless you can link to Labour being in power in 2015?

Guardian experts analyse the key election policies unveiled by Ed Miliband

Analysis
What is missing is a commitment to maintaining defence spending at 2% of GDP, the government pledge made at last year’s Nato summit. Without that commitment, the Ministry of Defence is one of the government departments most vulnerable to cutbacks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-manifesto-pledges-what-the-experts-say

@Rummly if Haigh had been told she could not be a Minister of State because of her spent conviction I would think much worse of Starmer- it goes against the whole idea of rehabilitation of offenders.

Yes, I think Johnathan Reynolds should probably resign. He should have corrected any inaccuracies before standing for Parliament. I suppose it could be argued that he did actually work as a solicitor- trainees in law firms do, just under supervision. But it was careless of him. I do have to say that the people who brought this to light are deeply unpleasant, and were obviously digging for dirt. But that obviously doesn't matter.

Irrelevant.

Lets try and at least deal with reality.

Alexandra2001
a travesty after 2014, we knew what we were dealing with

August 2015
What is Jeremy Corbyn's programme for government?

The UK would not spend 2% of GDP on defence, as pledged by the current government. The Trident nuclear missile system would be scrapped.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Was Corbyn in power? i think you re scrapping the barrel with that one....

Bottom line is.... First Cameron, then May, Johnson, i wont include Truss, she was busy crashing the economy... finally Sunak... ALL refused demands to even keep defence spend in line with inflation....

2.5% of GDP under Brown, 2.3% under Sunak....

And Jeremy Corbyn pledged to increase defence spending? I missed that one.

Do you really think, given the issues we all face, its worth while to go on about whether Reynolds was a trainee or a solicitor?

He said both at the same time.... that to me seems like mistakes rather than intention to mislead.

FA is vital and i don't agree with Starmers decision on FA to pay for Defence.

Its just a shame that your party over the last 14 years cut defence spending in real terms, a travesty after 2014, we knew what we were dealing with but the Tory party seemed in hock to Russia, so they didn't.

A spokesperson said the minister had written to the prime minister "offering an unreserved apology for inadvertent errors made and he's provided an explanation and an apology that the prime minister has accepted".

How can this be an inadvertent error?

In a 2015 election leaflet Jonathan Reynolds said:

^“I’ve been our MP, covering Stalybridge, Hyde, Dukinfield, Longdendale and Mossley since 2010. Before that I was a solicitor in Manchester and represented Longdendale on Tameside Council.”^

Reynolds didn’t just claim to be a ‘solicitor’ in the Commons, on LinkedIn, and on his online website. His title was also upgraded in his official bio in The Times Guide to the House of Commons [2019]…

https://order-order.com/people/jonathan-reynolds/

Reynolds said;
"I don't think it's a huge deal, but I should apologise for that, if anyone has misunderstood that, but I don't think they have."

They obviously have;

2024 - Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade
Profile - Jonathan Reynolds - the UK's new business and trade secretary...

Reynolds graduated from the University of Manchester and worked as a solicitor before entering politics.

https://www.export.org.uk/insights/features/profile-jonathan-reynolds-the-uk-s-new-business-and-trade-secretary/

Starmer was a former Director of Public Prosecutions - I can't see how he can keep Johnathan Reynolds in post - not least because of Louise Haigh's departure.

I don’t think Starmer has generally acted like that, TBH. His own nonsense excuse about the penthouse and the lack of action over career embellishment says otherwise.

Incidentally- in what way does Louise Haigh's spent conviction disqualify her for being a Minister of State?

Formally, as far as I know, it doesn’t. It’s the sort of background of which a party would say “sorry, we can’t put you in the government because people will question your judgment and character”.

The fact that Haigh was stitched up by her own side tells you that Labour certainly thought her past was incompatible with her office.