Steamers and the superinjunction

[hamstersarse]

Starmer surely can’t survive this one?

Guido Fox guy says it’s about the ‘shape of his family’ and reveals: “We have a name. As do the Mail and the Telegraph. We have a birth certificate."

Seems the allegations are something to do with an extra marital lady plus baby.

My opinion on this is that anyone who is such a control freak as to jail people for what they say is clearly a very dark person. And the hypocrisy he’s shown about almost everything he’s ever said, also shows a very dark underbelly,

Yes - we never knew exact number, but we knew what his overall track record was.

Remember that there are real DC involved and we don’t need to know the full detail.

So again, even here, I am being accused of disgusting things? I genuinely don't care what anyone professes to recall, I have said what happened. Obviously by the same posters with their own agenda.

Are you actually saying Starmer did not stand on a platform of cleaning up politics?

Charlotte turns up a lot, says little and votes reasonably often.

To break all that down a little: in the first three months of 2024, Charlotte claimed an average in attendance fees of £5,309 a month, which works out at around £64k a year, less parliamentary recesses.

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/67789/why-does-boris-keep-promoting-charlotte-owen

Sky news presenters

I think a lot of people (well outside the Westminster bubble that sees only shills/bots/spin) are having a “oh fuck, he’s just as bad as the rest of them” moment

Labour (and therefore him) wasn’t voted in on a wave of support and optimism. It was a very low number of votes cast, and the dominant reason seemed to be ‘anyone but the Tories’

With that as a backdrop, any sleaze is going to go down like a bowl of cold sick. Which of course doesn’t make this set of rumours true. But it shows that his popularity is fragile and easily damaged.

It seems the goal posts on what is considered "far-right" seem widen daily. Now anyone who criticises Starmer is far-right apparently.

No, I’m saying that the article you posted has no relevance to the basis on which you accuse him of hypocrisy.

Top 10% of speakers apparently. She doesn't get anything the other peers don't.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/17/charlotte-owen-sexist-gossip-lords-journalists

It's literally him saying he was going to clean up politics. This is getting very odd.

I haven't noticed that. On this thread for example, no one has been called far right. I haven't noticed it on other threads. I've criticised Starmer and not been called far right.

Out of interest, what are you saying when you're called far right?

He did say it. I remember it and you’ve linked it.

If he did, or if he didn't... the comparison is between Starmer not dusting the mantlepiece (football tickets, clothing) and Johnson et al wading 6' deep through sewage on the carpet (VIP lane contracting, partygate, "Let the bodies pile high", Russia funding, PPE, election betting, a host of sexual offence scandals

Trying to equate where Starmer is now with where the Tories have been over the last 14 years is gaslighting. And I'm not even particularly taken with him, I didn't vote Labour. It's being taken by fools by the right-wing press I can't stand, and the idiots that are too thick to see when they're being played.

It would be great if you could point out to me where you have seen that on this thread please

Thanks

She doesn't get anything the other peers don't.

She will eventually. There are children not yet born whose taxes will keep her in ermine. She’s got a guaranteed income for life - or as long as she can propel herself into the chamber.

'She will eventually'

What will she get that other peers don't?

Decades of attendance money. A lifetime guaranteed income at the age of 30.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/james-ball-there-is-no-starmer-superinjuction/

It's obviously fake news

No one has accused you of anything?

So other peers won't get (or haven't already received) decades of attendance money? She's not even the youngest member.

I'm responding to a post at 10.20.

I think using the term ‘speaking’ is being more than a little generous.

Of the 12 ‘spoken contributions’, one is a maiden speech, one is interjections to try to catch the Speaker’s attention, and seven are just a single question. She’s actually only made three speeches, the most recent of which is to introduce her private members bill.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Starmer and Labour. But all this grubby rumour (and hysterical scare) mongering deflects from that.

She’s the youngest but one and exactly the same applies to Carmen Smith. Neither of them should be in this incredibly privileged position.

That wasn't an accusation of anything "disgusting", it was an observation that recollections of what went on differ.