Thread 7 Starmer : Cats and Conferences

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5145757-thread-6-starmer-were-going-to-need-a-bigger-skip?page=40&reply=138030825

I suspect the confusion over the FT is that it made no bones about Brexit as a terrible error as regards our economy.

Yeah there's a lot of confusion when people don't agree that they must be left wing.

Weren't lawyers lefty lawyers at one point.

I'm sure a few story lawyers said that which always made me giggle.

It's almost like people cannot figure out the FINANCIAL times would discuss finances. And they'll discuss facts rather than just agree with you to make you feel better.

It's why I like reading their articles because they are actually less bias than the BBC!

"It's almost like people cannot figure out the FINANCIAL times would discuss finances. And they'll discuss facts rather than just agree with you to make you feel better."

Well, if your centrist starting point is Telegraph opinion pieces then yes the FT may appear left wing!

From No Plan to Dictatorship

and now anti elitists as well......

Eight people have died overnight while trying to cross the Channel from France to England

I really hope Labour will go further than smash the gangs and offer safe routes.

As I've pointed out (politely ) on that thread, there is a dissonance between their claim that FT isn’t political per se, that instead it's pro economic growth and that it's Left Wing

Now I need to withdraw from the thread and/or sit on my hands

So Starmer may have broken parliamentary rules in failing to declare clothes bought for his wife by Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli.

Cleverley on the LK show refuses to anser the question if he would accept donations from Frank Hester in the future but is very upset by Starmer's 'hypocrisy'

you socialist commie

Bloody Reds on the threads!

Reading the original story it seems that Starmer's wife accepted clothing from political donor, at a later date staff contacted the parliamentary authorities asking if they were supposed to disclose clothing, authorities said yes. But by that point they were outside the month limit for proper disclosures.

Absolutely a fuckup. And it seems ridiculous to me that they weren't more aware of the rule or atleast showed a curiosity about whether a rule might exist earlier (ideally before the point of receipt). Quite sloppy really. I bet Mr Rules Starmer is livid.

In my time on MN I have learnt that I am part of the elite & anti elite and communist. Fairly sure I also qualified as a member of the Blob at one point. And a member of the tofu eating wokerati. Happy days.

I will happily acknowledge my privilege: nice middle class background (although my dad had the temerity to send me to my excellent state school to the horror of his medical colleagues ), free university educated (one of the "Ancients"), got a sought after job from the milk round to a blue chip company on their graduate scheme in the middle or a recession, higher rate tax payer for most of my working life (and happy to do so); happily married; mortgage free, decent savings...

But despite - or because of - that, I'm very aware that those that are less fortunate than me need support and the society is a better place if we do that

I was brought up to believe that decent education and health care should be available to all. And that we should have a decent safety net and support the vulnerable. It's no coincidence that my dad was a doctor who refused to do any private work and my mother was a teacher (by all accounts an excellent one).

We've brought up ds to be aware of his own privilege and to believe in similar things. It's no suprise that he too is a pesky Socialist left winger

I think the Starmers have completely fucked up with these donations and I honestly can’t understand how they were advised so badly. They’re relatively wealthy, surely they can afford their own clothes? It’s really annoyed me, talk about an own goal.

Accepting the clothes isn’t against the rules. Not declaring them in time is the issue. It’s important that this was found out because they were declared (if a little late). They weren’t forced to admit something they were deliberately hiding.
However I think a good move would be to ban all gifts to MPs. Just say no, as Zammo said when I were a lass.

I learned I was a member of the metropolitan liberal elite in 2016. At that time I was working in an office overlooking the car park in a factory in an ex mining town in the East Midlands.

I know but it’s still tone deaf however you look at it.

Agree. What were they thinking of? I think the red dress Mrs S wore on July 5th was identified as from a slightly upmarket place that she presumably could afford herself. If she couldn't, get something from M&S.

(Just checked. It was from ME&EM and cost £275. So not unreasonable, given the Starmers aren't short of a quid or two. No need for donations.)

I do expect more from Labour, @BIossomtoes - but I simultaneously think it’s part of the general issue of holding them to a higher standard which tends to benefit Tories. I’m a confused mess.

I think it is right to hold Labour to higher standards, even if it gives fuel to their opponents. Starmer needs to make some changes to make those higher standards the norm.

I don’t think it is. You know how fervent a Labour supporter I am but this is just unforgivable because it’s so unnecessary and will make people wonder what other expenses are covered by donations. I’m really surprised no Tories have pointed out that Carrie Johnson rented her frocks.

Fair point. The systems all need to change to prevent the possibility.

As you said Blossom, it is an avoidable own goal. Two threads running on it now. Tory HQ will be delighted.

I am forever moaning about The Times but I thought this was an interesting article -
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/early-prisoner-release-labour-tories-0t5smrplf

If its correct then it seems that Alex Chalk (ex SoS for Justice) was very aware of the issues in the system and was trying hard to resolve them but battling indecision further up and that Sunak spent 18 months trying to get additional prisons built but was blocked by planning issues (and possibly their own MPs).

Far too little, too late of course.
The issue of prison places was flagged as far back as 2015 by Theresa May who promised 1000's of additional prison places but then dropped the plans. But it provides a bit more nuance to the issue and as the article says it highlights issues that Labour will have to avoid if they are to succeed.

The other prong to this is the vast number of prisoners on remand due to court delays (be that due to the closure of courts and failure to maintain court estates, and lack of judges and appropriate representation) - more areas which require greater investment.

It's all a bit Keirs beer isn't it ?

Or Angelas house ?

Hard Impossible to fight the feeling that CCHQ just looked at their own long list of peccadillos and ticked off the next one to throw to a news-starved media.

You're not wrong, but Starmer should be able to anticipate this and avoid own goals like this.