Thread 8 Starmer : Cat fur on new clothes

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5157500-thread-7-starmer-cats-and-conferences?page=40&reply=138415767

TBH I think outrage is actually quite apt, for some of these stories.

I totally get that a lot of it is the MSM scouring anything they can to find stories that will undermine TLP/SKS - I'm not totally naive.

But it's the fact that things have been done/monies/gifts accepted (no denying of the stories) that is disconcerting. And yes, I know that the Tories (specifically Boris and Carrie) were worse, but that doesn't make any of this better.

@prettybird if you have a Kindle, Animal Farm is one of the (many) books that you can download for free. And it's a very short book - will take hardly any time to read.

I don't think the Tories were in any position to bring it up pre-election as it would focus on their own record.

I am disappointed with Labour's naivity, it was this tweet with Pogrund's (the Times) timeline that made me think about the media influence

https://x.com/sturdyAlex/status/1837628288170447074

I’m pretty pissed off about such an unnecessary own goal but I’m very pleased there’s been no denying. For me the donations fall into two categories - the Arsenal box is fair enough because there’s a practical security reason and I don’t care about a five night stay in a Manhattan flat. The clothes and glasses are unforgivable, how ridiculous to allow a donor to fund those when you’re financially perfectly able to buy your own wardrobe and specs.

I suppose I'm also reading all this while thinking back to the first days of Tony Blair's new government. Positive things happened, and quickly, so the elation of the election win was carried on into government.

I had so hoped that SKS and his government would achieve something similar - notwithstanding that the economic context for the election win is different.

Hope. The cruellest emotion.

I think for, something that stands out is how it is deemed acceptable to accept gifts within politics. That it appears to be happening amongst MPs of all parties shows that it has become part of the culture of politics.

For me, this bigger picture needs proper examination and questions asked over how, why and when this became accepted by politicians as normal behaviour. It is not normal, or acceptable to accept freebies from people, particularly when in a position of power or influence in most businesses, so why has this culture been allowed to develop here?

Saying you've followed the rules is ok, as is acting within the rules- but when the rules have evolved away from the purpose they were designed for, you need to reset them. I hope this happens as a result.

I scrolled too fast and for a split second I thought it was LK's interview style you were complimenting

So did I! I thought we had another visitor for a second.

I agree Llttledrummergirl

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/21/revealed-mps-accepted-more-than-700000-in-free-gifts-and-hospitality-last-year

I think you might be remembering with rose tinted glasses. The very first thing the Blair government did was cut single parents’ benefits.

The major difference (the economy aside) was that the Blair government was so comms savvy and disciplined. They considered the optics of everything and there were severe repercussions for anyone who went off message. The current director of comms is either incompetent or they’re not listening to them.

I suppose you're right - and yes, I'd forgotten about the benefits thing.

I fear I am out of step with majority opinion, not for the first time!

I started last week with a bit of hand wringing concern about Starmer and Grey etc.

But as the week has gone on I have found myself wondering how seriously I should take the 'optics' when the lens operators are less than reliable.

And who does it benefit for me to fret over expensive glasses rather than say the state of the legal service?

I am irritated with Starmer. Nobody needs such expensive glasses. Yes, it looks shit. It should never have happened. Get better at Comms.

But it is exactly the same level of irritation I had with the donor's helicopters and the Johnsons wedding bungs or holidays. I thought it was shitty - but those donations weren't the underlying reason why I rejected either Johnson or Sunak.

I rejected their politics because I rejected Austerity, the time and money wasted on Brexit (still not bloody finished), the NHS waiting lists, lying to Parliament, Rwanda, Braverman's rhetoric, the failures in transport policy, in housing, the shit in the rivers, the framing of our woes on people claiming benefits or asylum seekers. So many vital public services have been ground down.

And so I've decided that media commentators don't get to tell to me what I should prioritise. They are the last people I would seek advice on regarding standards anyway. Hunt began the year meeting with the editor of the Daily Mail and Lord Rothermere, the owner. Do I think that was for my benefit? Was it fuck.

So, Labour and Starmer remain, thus far, better than the alternative.

But as the week has gone on I have found myself wondering how seriously I should take the 'optics' when the lens operators are less than reliable.

I'm of the same opinion. Starmer needs to work on a shutting down phrase like "we will look at that to see if any rules have been broken" then leave it. His defensiveness only amplifies the nonsense. But I'm sure he'll learn.

Glad your op went well @Piggywaspushed.

I am irritated with Starmer. Nobody needs such expensive glasses. Yes, it looks shit. It should never have happened. Get better at Comms.

I think the last point is vital. At first, Labour had control of the narrative. The reaction to the riots in particular made Starmer look strong and capable. Now that is all reversed by the stupid clothes story and the WFA decision.

The media, including bloody social media, has control of the narrative along with critics on the right and left. That narrative -that Starmer is not who he says he is, is a liar and not to be trusted- is taking hold. Labour has to get control back and fast.

Yep, me too.
I'm getting increasingly annoyed that the media are acting like we have the attention span of goldfish. We all know about the free holidays, helicopter rides, interior designers of the last government (as that article shows). I can't take the reporting seriously if they (the journalists) are going to accept the Conservatives assertions about Labour without examining the wider culture.

I do think however that Starmer needs to get on with his pledges, maybe by strengthening and updating the ministerial code to make it clearer what kind of donations are and aren't admissible.

Why do so many posters think a bit of hostile press and a few members of the Labour Party having differences of opinion will mean they have to stop being the government? It’s weird.

They don't think?

Because a) after nearly a decade of political instability the public have got used to a merry-go-round in No 10 and b) that's the kind of perception the r/w media want to create.

There is also a pretence that we thought a Labour government would fart sunshine and rainbows.

There is also a pretence that we thought a Labour government would fart sunshine and rainbows.

Haha, indeed.

Yay to piggy's cardi Bach.

See what I did there 😉

Sorry cardi - couldn't resist 😂😂

🤣
Mine is actually the name of a bus rather than a garment.

I’m pretty pissed off about such an unnecessary own goal but I’m very pleased there’s been no denying. For me the donations fall into two categories - the Arsenal box is fair enough because there’s a practical security reason and I don’t care about a five night stay in a Manhattan flat. The clothes and glasses are unforgivable, how ridiculous to allow a donor to fund those when you’re financially perfectly able to buy your own wardrobe and specs.

Pretty much sums up how feel too Blossom

Totally agree it was an own goal.

Should they do it? They all do. But they know it'll backfire.

If they'd stopped at rockets for box and cited security reasons they wouldn't have so much defending to do.

And yes, I know it's not a wedding, holiday or wallpaper. But they know it'll be judged differently even if it's not right that they are.

Absolutely.

I'm disappointed in our new PM.
Siberian kitten indeed. Surely a Labour leader should have a proletariat moggy instead.
And as for calling it 'Prince'. Wouldn't Comrade have been more appropriate?
OK it's a Russian kitten but seems more of a Tsarist kitten than a Soviet one.
How many more mistakes will he make?
Cat tax included - (note the pint glass, no Champagne socialcats in our house.)
For anyone who has seen this I apologise - I did post this on one of the 'littertray' threads too.

I don't want the comms to get better so that politicians can pretend to be honest and honorable, I want them to be honest and honorable.

That's all politicians, not just the ones caught out on the take by accident. I'm glad Starmers glasses etc came to light because he was being honest- I just don't understand why he thought it was ok to accept them in the first place.

Some donations like Blossoms example about football tickets are acceptable, staying in someone's home on holiday, I couldn't give a stuff about but they really should be thinking hard about the appropriateness before accepting.

Where is the crown mark on that pint glass, tut tut