Labour Corruption?

[Zebedee999]

Labour took donations from the unions pre-election and are now giving pay rises to those same union's members with limited or no negotiations. Is this corruption?

YABU = Not corruption
YANBU = Corruption of sorts

My issue is with trafficking networks, profit, misery basically the whole set up

That we agree on

The Australia set up has lots of critisism, especially regarding the conditions in the camps and the indefinite detention.

And then there is the issue of where the UK would build the camps.

I don't know, probably the same as other people in the UK

But they don't go to those places straight from the boats as was suggested by Farage and chums.

“I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism: this ends now.”

Keir Starmer January 2024

That was a hollow promise.

Was it? One crony has been got rid of - without really looking at whether there was a reason for employment in the first place - the other is a non story of a temporary pass with no influence attached. If you can’t see the difference here, I can’t really help you.

There's a third one here in Civil Service World - and another piece from The Times:

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/jess-sargeant-civil-service-appointment-labour-faces-questions-cronyism-row

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/labour-vowed-to-cleanse-whitehall-of-cronyism-unless-theyre-labour-cronies-rhqtrk3rm

I can’t read a Times link as I don’t subscribe.
Does it show he’s not the best man for the job? Because knowing someone or donating doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not. If he’s not, then yes, he should go and questions could be asked.
The Civil Service World one seems to indicate she’s very well qualified for the role.
Cronyism isn’t just employing people you know. It’s doing it when others are better qualified.

So you haven't taken anyone in? But keep asking if other people are? And ignored me saying we have taken people in. You have a particular narrative, don't you?

If you have 3 DC at least two must be the same sex and could share. There you go, room freed up.

Also, Henry Newman, the former Tory adviser who has been leading the charge on this story in his Whitehall Project newsletter, argues that most such appointments were within ministers’ personal courts — as speechwriters, diary managers and policy advisers — rather than to senior roles within the machine itself.

This would be the Harry Newman who’s a friend of Carrie Johnson and who was fined for being at the party held in the Johnson’s’ flat to celebrate Cummings’ sacking. People in glass houses …

Another one here;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/15/labour-cronyism-deepens-top-civil-service-emily-middleton/

And this;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-cronyism-row-ian-corfield-appointment-b2601501.html

Have fun - family film night just starting in my house.

Well there are so many quotes from Labour posters replying to all of you is even more posts.

I can see it has been an issue for you though that I didn't respond to your post.

I've asked people as they seem very keen to support asylum seekers and refugees and it's a good way to do it.

The issue isn't that you didn't reply to me. It's that you keep asking everyone if they've taken anyone in, while admitting you haven't. So I thought you would be delighted to find someone who has. Except I realised it didn't fit your story. Why aren't you taking anyone in? Your DC don't have to have a room each.

Well no as I obviously feel differently to many on this thread, in that I want the Aus system

People here are focusing on doing more so they can, I've linked a charity to show how they can back up their words.

I think it's quite a good charity as it goes, but I still prefer a better system.

@Clavinova apart from the report in Civil Service World, which gave good reasons why the person concerned might have been appointed, the rest of 5he reports seem to be Tory shit stirring. Maybe Trott is right and the ethics adviser should have a look. Or, just maybe, since there actually is an ethics adviser to this government, he has already looked?

There are a LOT of 'junior' Doctors who are voting against accepting the proposed 22% pay rise from Labour because it's only 1% more than the BMA unions most recent discussion with the Tories.

The BMA union has spent 2 years yelling 35% 'full pay restoration' and as soon as Labour were voted in, did a 180 saying 'bank this pay deal offer and we'll continue fighting for full pay restoration' which many members are seeing as the suspected, but now very obvious sign that Labour and the BMA are in bed with each other and the previous hostile campaign against the Tory government was more about getting Labour in, than really about pay restoration.

And I don't know why so much focus on this thread has been about asylum seekers from Syria, which is 10th on the list of asylum seekers in the UK in 2023 after Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iraq, Albania and Eritrea. and above Sudan, Vietnam, Brazil and China.

FWIW i'm neither a Tory nor Labour voter, I think they're two cheeks of the same bum. I voted Green :)

As long as their case is pending (or appeal for those who were rejected for Asylum) they receive a much smaller amount of Essential Living Allowance (just under £50 per week) if they stay in official asylum housing. Those in hotels get a massive £8.86 towards clothing and travel. Those in initial accommodation where food is provided when they first enter get nothing else at all.

They can't go to the Job Centre - you can't work unless/until asylum has been granted.

True.

But also, there are a huge amount of 'asylum seekers' in the UK who have been resident in the UK for years, and who were previously over-stayers on work or student visas who latterly claimed asylum.

Those people aren't asylum-seekers as most people would consider as fleeing war or persecution in their home countries but 'over-stayers' from an initial visa who latterly changed their claim to seeking asylum.

And those people already resident in the UK for years, are generally housed in social housing and receiving state benefits as they are UK residents and have been for years.

They're not treated like initial asylum claims because they didn't claim asylum when they came to the UK on student or work visas.

So it isn't accurate to say 'asylum seekers don't get this get this or that' when a large proportion of asylum seekers are in social housing and receiving state benefits.

That's just fact.

And you can back up those facts?

If someone has had an asylum claim turned down and have exhausted all rights to appeal, then they receive nothing whatsoever from the state not even the emergency living allowance. I deal with this occasionally in my job.

Listening to BBC World Service and the update for Germany. It's a very difficult situation and my overall take is we can do humanitarian things, in fact many were generous re Ukrainian scheme, however it's not a good idea to just ignore and bury heads in the sand over the next decade or so.

Use policy and managed schemes and I think it could help, however the only way to stop trafficking networks on top of those schemes currently is a deterrent.

Alternatively we could all decide a better way to allocate humanitarian placements via a change in the law but I doubt we are near that.

There have been many of them over the last 5 years. But they are not now in power so what would be the point. Live in the present not the past.

Hmmm childish response. If you can't use reasoned debate then you have already lost the argument. Throwing childish insults is what kids do.

In fairness, your OP was a tad childish.

No, it was facetious.

Make a sensible point and I’ll consider a sensible answer.

FYU The BMA isn't an affiliated union i.e. it doesn't donate money to the Labour party