Labour isn't working - Thread 29

[TheNuthatch]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government. 💙* *

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5496672-labour-isnt-working-thread-28?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Yep. Its just not plausible.

He needs to be questioned in a privileges committee on what led to that all due process statement.

Exactly this. He should have been on top of this all along. In the first instance he should've been keeping an eye on the post-appointment vetting process. As he apparently wasn't, he should definitely have found out the entire timeline when it went wrong last year. Seemingly, he failed even at the point of sacking him to check what went wrong previously.

How he ever succeeded as a barrister with his lack of inquisitiveness, investigative skills and research ability, I'm unsure. Or just making sure he had all relevant information before standing up to present his case.

So, the end result is that either he's lying or he's just exceptionally incompetent. Neither is what we want in a leader (the fact he's choosing to portray incompetence is an interesting choice too!).

Ed Davey has called for that, and also an investigation by the ethics advisor.
It will just be "it never crossed my desk" again.

I love that joke doing the rounds online about putting Starmer's desk in the channel to stop anything crossing. 😂

I laughed 😂 vg

Labour MP going for not coming up on doorstep and people don’t care line today. I hope he feels differently via local elections on May 7th.

...or he knew full well that the Prince of Darkness would never pass vetting, employed him anyway, and is now trying to convince the public that he had no idea that Mandy is a wrong-un.

Ahhhh, in the same way that women's rights never come up on the doorstep, despite many MNers having raised it at the very least!

Well. That one will never fly! 🤣

Starmer on camera in Hastings, February 2026:

"There was security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role."

🤣

This is a lie, no one would have told him this. So why say it?

Why the fuck would you go on camera and say that without checking first? That's just so incompetent that he appears to be a liability.

I just struggle to believe it's not something he'd have been told about (because he should've actively sought out the information way before this point).

My trusty old tumble dryer just died. 😩

I've got a mahoosive laundry pile to get through today. I've heard bad things about heat pump dryers so I've been dreading the day my vented one died.

Yep, and why did nobody around him tell him at that point that he was lying if he truly was unaware?
Nah. Its bs.

Can't you get a condenser one still? Disappointing if not.

I've only had a quick Google, but not impressed with the options available. My bestie bought a heat pump, but it took 5 hours! Not sure if hers was just a bad one, but its put me off.
I don't use it much as you know, but will miss it being there when the weather is shite. Bloody EU.

Are heat pump driers the same as condensing driers? If so, my condensing drier works really well. And you don’t have the big vent pipe to bother installing. I thought emptying the tank would be a pain but it’s dead simple and no faff. I recommend.

Anyway, Starmer…that TV quote looks like it might do for him on its own. To explain it away he’d have to say he was lied to. There’s been no suggestion of that so far.

Heat pumps and condenser dryers are different. From what I can gather, vented and condensing dryers are being phased out, but eco friendly heat pumps take forever to dry stuff.
I can't find a condensing dryer that does the reverse tumble thing. I'll keep looking.

Starmer is going to start forgetting which lies he's told, and to.whom.

We went through this quite recently and got a condenser - the one that draws water out anyway.

It’s much faster than a heat pump I agree.

Why, why you say this and not ask. He seems to be totally blank.

Reading the independent article, is this another instance of using "lawyer speak" to mislead?

"No 10 was not involved in the security vetting process. This is managed at departmental level by the agency responsible and any suggestion that No 10 was involved is untrue"

I mean, no one is expecting No 10 to have actually conducted the interviews.

But we do expect the prime minister and foreign secretary to have been told what was found, and for No 10 to have discussed the implications of what was found with the civil service, in order to make a judgement call on the appointment. Given Mandelson's past, Starmer and Lammy must have known a discussion on the findings snd risks was needed, surely? Even if it wasn't volunteered, they must have asked for a detailed breakdown and a civil service/security view of the risks!

Is that statement just slipperly lawyer behaviour: that the letter of "involved in the security vetting process" doesn't include discussing the outcome and using that to inform making the final decision on whether to go ahead with the appointment? Because that's deciding the appointment, not the security vetting process itself.

I often find myself puzzling over whether top Labour ministers are just completely incompetent... whether they think the rules don't apply to them because they are the 'good guys' and they can't see past their assumption that whatever they decide must by definition be good... or whether they are psychopathic liars.

Psychopathy has about 1% incidence in the population. I think we find it really hard to recognise, because the pro-social, empathic world view that is missing in psychopaths is so deeply part of non-psychopathic humans that we find it almost impossible to imagine how a psychopath sees the world. (And vice versa, I'm sure).

We can't 'feel' an echo of the psychopaths motivations within ourselves (or rather, they are immediately dismissed by our pro-social/human-considering imperative) so the psychopath's true motivations don't ring true to us, and we assume it must be some other motivations.

Whether psychopaths are over represented among politicians I don’t know, though I’d agree there must be some.

What seems very clear is that virtually all politicians are power-seeking chancers. The higher in politics you go the more certain you can be that you’re looking at one of these people. The lying, backstabbing and desire to direct people’s lives gets stronger as you go upwards.

I don’t believe there’s any distinction between politicians of any political outlook in that respect. Which is one reason that I find the left’s cries of “we’re so much more moral than the right, we’re good people” so loathsome. They should just accept that they’re as power-hungry and venal as their opponents. I despair when I see posters say “lots of MPs just want to serve the public and do good”. Absolute fucking nonsense. MPs like that (and councillors) are as rare as hens’ teeth. They’re nearly all in it for power, publicity, vanity or money.

If someone being appointed for a very high security position fails vetting, and no discussion or action is taken, what's the point of vetting them? It just doesn't add up.

I don't know anything about psychopathy in and around government, but I'm certain that I've met a few working in construction. I think Starmer & Co are simply a bunch of power hungry, talentless, scheming liars.

For example, we struggle to understand why someone would say something on camera without knowing it was true. That's because our worldview contains an assumption - so deeply held that it's not even examined - that we hold responsiblity to the people who hear what we say, and also to the people we are talking about. That unless there's a good reason not to, we should give those people correct information, in order to respect their autonomous decision making.

A psychopath may not feel that responsibility, any more than you would feel a need to tell the truth to an earthworm. The earthworm exists because it doesn't inconvenience you - and of course it's nice that it benefits your soil. Although you recognise them as living creatures, an individual earthworm (or a few thousand) are completely expendable if you want to build a kitchen extension.

They would only be concerned with the consequences to themselves: the benefits of the lie (no matter how trivial the benefit), the risks of it being found out, and their ability to mitigate the downside (eg with additional lies) if it was.

I'm a STEM person, and until you get to senior management, most people are pretty straightforward (and it's not hard to recognise that senior management needs a different perspective) so perhaps I find it more difficult to recognise that behaviour than most, since I don't have to deal with it too much!