x.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1835019508500906437?s=46&t=VO7BWgMBVguGKTtZCKOxtw
The new PM seems to have got himself in a bit of pickle with regards donations already.
|
|
Probably an oversight by his staff but he needs to be careful; not his first offence.
|
It's not normal is it.
We have such strict rules at work that it's just not worth accepting gifts from clients (forms reporting, refusal if over a certain amount etc.)
Failure to report or refuse can lead to significant sanctions including dismissal and even banning from the entire banking industry. These are rules the employer has put in because of legislation and have been "gold plated" by the regulator - again Govt. appointed.
So clearly, the rules we have to follow, don't seem to apply to the "BOSSES" in the same way.
Disappointed.
|
I worked under similar rules. Reading online today it appears that his office asked for initial advice and was told it was OK but this was later clarified as needing declaring. Seems very odd to me, almost as if the initial query was phrased in a way to get round the rules and they were subsequently caught out when details emerged.
I am still bemused that, once declared, it’s seen as OK for the PM and his wife to take substantial gifts.
|
|
A bit like the fuss around Boris' wallpaper.
|
>> Probably an oversight by his staff but he needs to be careful; not his first
>> offence.
>>
I would agree, I think he's got much less room for error after his pre election position about this sort of thing.
|
|
I think we'll find it's mostly confected, a bit like Rayner's alleged CGT dodging.
|
|
I worked for a local council. driving. We were told we couldn't take advantage of fuel station loyalty card benefits, as those in offices didn't have the same opportunities. A cycle to work scheme offered free breakfast to those who cycled to work, as I did. As I would be on the road, i asked where my free breakfast would be delivered.........................................................
|
In my last employment, shorts were not allowed to be worn after a couple of female fundraisers wore very smart, but short shorts to the office.
So when we had a heatwave I asked could I wear tailored shorts to be told no , shorts weren't allowed. But if I turned up in a mini skirt they wouldn't have been able to say anything cos they were allowed....
|
>> In my last employment, shorts were not allowed to be worn after a couple of
>> female fundraisers wore very smart, but short shorts to the office.
>>
>> So when we had a heatwave I asked could I wear tailored shorts to be
>> told no , shorts weren't allowed.
It's not about shorts or no shorts but about appropriate dress. A proper dress code would capture that.
I wonder how short the women's shorts were and what was revealed (or not concealed).
|
>> So when we had a heatwave I asked could I wear tailored shorts to be
>> told no , shorts weren't allowed. But if I turned up in a mini skirt
>> they wouldn't have been able to say anything cos they were allowed....
I worked in an environment that had hundreds of thermionic valves (remember them?) and it was very hot in the Summer. I once turned up in a kaftan. Nothing was said, but it raised a few eyebrows.
|
>> I worked for a local council. driving. We were told we couldn't take advantage of
>> fuel station loyalty card benefits, as those in offices didn't have the same opportunities.
Same in the Civil Service. We could use a government procurement card to buy catering supplies for meetings in Sainsburys but you were not allowed to collect the Nectar points on your own card.
Nothing to do with opportunity for different staff groups; it was to avoid any perception of points influencing where stuff was bought.
|
>> www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
>>
>> He seems to like all the freebies that go with the job.
>>
It's interesting because for a former lawyer you'd think that grey areas are something to be avoided. It should have been immediately obvious to even the most dimwitted staffer that the public perception of a man on a £165,000 salary being unable to afford a suit for work is not a good look, let alone the optics of someone buying the damned thing for him as a "donation".
He has shown quite an impressive ability to be unaware of public sentiment regarding his decision-making and is clearly not thinking ahead in any context.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Tue 17 Sep 24 at 11:37
|
He's giving four million quid to Italy for them to tackle their immigrant crisis. That's a drop in the ocean for a nation, and aren't the EU supporting them?
Glad to see how he's giving away the pensioner's Winter fuel allowance.
|
So Rayner and Reeves have also been receiving thousands of quids worth of clothes as donations but disguised them in the Register as 'office support'.
Maybe we should have members of both Houses have their sponsors names embroidered on their togs?
|
>> donations but disguised them in the Register
>>
I think that we should start referring to the Register as "The Big Book of Bribes", because that's exactly what it is.
|
It's all just hypocrisy.
The Labour Party were very quick to deny pensioners £300, but the PM got a £10,000 gift of a flat for his son to take his GCSE's whilst the election was underway and top quality suits and other gifts worth £107, 145 since December 2019. Gifts and luxuries that some retired people can only dream off.
George Orwell was right, but it's not 1984, it's Animal Farm!
|
|
I think it's fairly obvious that political parties, or those standing for, or in office should not be allowed to take "donations". Of any kind
|
>> I think it's fairly obvious that political parties, or those standing for, or in office
>> should not be allowed to take "donations". Of any kind
Presumably you are in favour of some sort of state funding of parties then? That would be the logical answer but the implementation would be extremely difficult and I suspect the public would hate the idea. Would supporters of the Labour Party agree to the State giving £millions to parties of the far right for example? Who would decide who qualifies for State money?
|
I seem to recall there is some form of state funding/allowances for political parties based on number candidates?
Anything is better than parties financed by those who at the end of the day are doing it for their own financial / power / ideology interests. I know that traditional Labour were financed by Unions and Tories by Bosses, which ensure a feeling of class war - that was equally bad.
The US political system is in the state it's in now because just that very thing.
Some of the sense shown by politicians is abysmal, I mean whatt possessed a man who claims to be the leader of a "workers" party accept a gift of "clothes", when those who voted for him may be struggling to pay the cost of their mandatory overpriced kids school uniform.
At the end of the day, like any government, too much political money gets squandered, filtered away or corruption occurs.
Tis the way all over the world,
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Sep 24 at 10:10
|
>> I think it's fairly obvious that political parties, or those standing for, or in office
>> should not be allowed to take "donations". Of any kind
That's fine and dandy in principle but as CGN points out if parties and candidates cannot take donations there's a lot of slack for the taxpayer to take up.
The present system, where everything needs to be in a publicly available register, is probably as good as you get as a principle. It needs though to be properly enforced and with greater clarity in how things are described. Fifteen thousand quid for office expenses is on thing if it buys computers, high speed broadband, cost of professional advice etc.
Fifteen k on clothing, although we've no reason to suspect anything fishy, is pretty appalling optics as KS is finding now.
|
>> Fifteen k on clothing, although we've no reason to suspect anything fishy, is pretty appalling
>> optics as KS is finding now.
Much as I disagree with most things Skinner, Benn Snr*, Cornyn stood for and espoused one has to admire their principles, standards and connection with their electorate.
*Tho to be fair, Benn was pretty effective and forward thinking when he was technology minister, albeit rather stary eyed and naive
|
>> That's fine and dandy in principle but as CGN points out if parties and candidates
>> cannot take donations there's a lot of slack for the taxpayer to take up.
Too much money makes parties bloated and wasteful, Too much money is spent on getting elected.
|
I'm not going to justify any of it but it's all trivial stuff and nothing to do with investigative journalism. It seemed to be triggered by Mrs Starmer's clothes, prompted by the declaration made by Labour being corrected in line with advice sought and given.
Of course, declaring something doesn't make it OK, but it does AFAIK in these cases make it legal.
Johnson's 'sponsorship' was very much higher in value over the same period, as was Sunak's and he certainly doesn't need the money. But this is all private money. Don't even mention hundreds of millions of public money funnelled to family and friends in the pandemic.
That said I think Labour has failed miserably here in terms of how things look - the fuel allowance thing as well as some of the freebies. And to think they could criticise the Tories for it and do it themselves, even on a lower scale, was just naïve.
One of my biggest criticisms of the Tories in office was that they cared far less about what was right or effective than they did about how it looked. Propaganda was paramount. I'm glad that's gone but Labour is paying a heavy price for being more honest.
I hope they have the sense to change the fiscal rules, do some sensible borrowing for investment (defined as anything with a financial payback) and start fixing the tax system where possible, which I suspect will have a lower yield than people seem to think. If they're going to be unpopular, they might as well get on with it for a while.
|
>I'm not going to justify any of it but it's all trivial stuff and nothing to do with investigative journalism.
>It seemed to be triggered by Mrs Starmer's clothes, prompted by the declaration made by Labour
>being corrected in line with advice sought and given.
I suspect your definition of trivial may be different to that of the average Joe.
This was triggered by the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance which prompted journos to start looking into Starmer and Reeves's expenses and donations probably looking for an 'us and them' puff piece. Starmer & Co were happy to keep the donations misleadingly categorized as 'office support' until questions started being asked about what they actually consisted of. That trail inevitably led to revelations about use of Alli's properties, the extent of his other donations and then to why he'd been given a No10 'access all areas' security pass.
Starmer has proven time and time again that you cannot believe a word he says and the lack of forthright answers only encourages suspicion and further scrutiny.
>I'm glad that's gone but Labour is paying a heavy price for being more honest.
Are you being serious?! They're having to have information wrung out of them bit by excruciating bit and my bet is that there's more to come.
|
>> I suspect your definition of trivial may be different to that of the average Joe.
>> This was triggered by the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance which prompted journos to
>> start looking into Starmer and Reeves's expenses and donations
I'm not sure the WFA withdrawal was the trigger. More a case of Media looking for, and finding, a story. Us/them is a hook whatever.
While some of the donations for clothing, maybe those for Vic Starmer or Rachel Reeves, were initially categorised as office support I'm not sure they all were.
They've been badly burned by this stuff and been shown up as naive but there's no evidence that it's corrupt. Alli is no more than a rich man wanting a Labour government.
He's a multi millionaire and has a seat in the Lords. What else is he trying to buy?
If we want people who've not gone into politics straight from A levels through their University's clubs to lead us then here's why it won't work.
|
>> He's a multi millionaire and has a seat in the Lords. What else is he
>> trying to buy?
>>
I don't think that line really holds much, with people with money there's always more to be had or gained. Why did he want an all access pass to number 10? Plenty of people give money the Con party I don't think anyone has used that line then nor should they now.
Who else is going to write big cheques other than the rich?
Would have been a lot easier if he'd have given to the party and then they doled it out as required. His money and influence would have been one step removed. But he wanted to be that bit closer to the levers of power and so here we are again.
|
I'm not sure naïve really suits when they spent much time criticising the other party for similar stuff, albeit on a somewhat grander scale.
Stupid fits better.
|
>I'm not sure the WFA withdrawal was the trigger. More a case of Media looking for, and finding, a story...
Then I think you're missing the obvious. What better story than a comparison of Starmer and Reeves's income with the breadline pensioners and the working parents making sacrifices to put their kids through private school who became an immediate target of Labour's vindictive spite.
>Alli is no more than a rich man wanting a Labour government.
You believe that guff?
If he was only yearning for a Labour government why was he splashing the cash at the leadership? Wouldn't it have been better spent on candidates in marginals where a hundred quids worth of leaflets or a Youtube ad might have tipped the balance in Labour's favour?
Oh, I forget. He did give some cash to a new candidate didn't he? Pure coincidence that it was Sue Gray's son I guess.
>He's a multi millionaire and has a seat in the Lords. What else is he trying to buy?
You'd better ask Starmer and Co. because the media don't seem to be having much success getting an answer to that.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/rosie-duffield-resigns-as-labour-mp-13224014
>>
>> The PM looses his first MP.
Duffield is, I think, an outlier in the party because of her stance on gender ID. She's on the button over the two child limit and benefit cap though.
When I heard the announcement at first I though she'd resigned her seat which, of course, would force a byelection.
Will be interesting to see whether she sits as an Indy or joins another party.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 29 Sep 24 at 09:17
|
Duffield's resignation letter is worth a read.
She does hold back on anything.
Last edited by: Falkirk Bairn on Sun 29 Sep 24 at 11:24
|
A key element of the Labour campaign was to insist they were the party to bring back trust, integrity and transparency to politics. They were justifiably critical of the Tories.
They have clearly learned nothing but the power of empty electoral rhetoric.
Accepting tickets to major events could be judged reasonable if disclosed in a timely manner. All politicians need to meet and have a dialogue with the community - even if they own football clubs that coincidentally the PM supports.
Accepting clothing and accommodation is so evidently potentially corrupt and unnecessary that the judgement at the top of the Labour Party seems seriously flawed.
Equally flawed or mis-judged is the winter fuel allowance debacle - an ounce of political nous should have alerted them to the likely public response.
Playing political games with the "black hole" was predictable - although having continually asserted that "after 14 years of chaos", visibility of OBR forecasts and access to official since January their protestations are questionable.
The thread title "New boss same as old boss" - unambiguously yes - the Tories simply had 14 years more practice. Massive improvement required to justify any trust.
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law
No other comments allowed!? Media not even allowed to report one exists.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 1 Oct 24 at 00:03
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law
>>
>> No other comments allowed!? Media not even allowed to report one exists.
Are there rumours of a court case involving government and/or ministers where privacy/anonymity orders prevent reporting even of its existence?
Quick few thoughts as I start work at 09:00.
The term 'super injunction' is IMHO misleading.
This stuff was in the news at the time Ryan Giggs was attempting to prevent reporting of his alleged dalliances. Reporting of privacy injunctions by the media, who of course really wanted the story to boost their circulation, was disgracefully slanted. I think there was a long(ish) thread at the time.
If there's more to add after I knock off for the day I may add another post.
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law
>>
>> No other comments allowed!? Media not even allowed to report one exists.
Is there anything concrete on this rumour?
There's a thread on Mumsnet referring to stuff on Guido Fawkes but a search on the subject on Guido loops back to Mumsnet's thread and nothing else.
If there is something Parliament is back next week. Will somebody use privilege to spill some beans?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 3 Oct 24 at 11:06
|
>> If there is something Parliament is back next week. Will somebody use privilege to spill
>> some beans?
>>
>>
If they did, no one would be able to report the fact that they did!
Seems perverse.
|
>> If they did, no one would be able to report the fact that they did!
>>
>> Seems perverse.
I suspect that under qualified privilege the media can report stuff said in Parliament whatever.
Last time 'super injunctions' were a thing, c2011, there was a lot of nonsense spouted by the press, particularly the sort of papers that print kiss/tell type stories. Essentially the vast majority of these so called super injunctions were actually about privacy.
If one is a high profile person, say in business, and assert you would be damaged by a kiss/tell story you have every right to sue the teller. If, by their existence any knowledge of those proceeding lets the cat out of the bag then you can ask for them to be anonymised. The story then becomes 'who is plaintiff SMB' - the random initials by which our anonymised business person is referred.
Such injunctions are not permanent, they would end if the there had indeed been kisses to tell of.
I guess that as there are thousands of people in business, sport, showbiz etc who might be SMB they're safe enough. If it were the PM who was the subject of highly disputed allegations of 'wrong beddery' the n it might need something more robust then three letters to keep the proceeding out of the headlines.
Time will tell.
One case did get published:
There were tweets about Baroness Chapman a while ago which sort of implied an affair with Starmer. She sued and damages were paid.
pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
|
The thread title "New boss same as old boss" - goes with the phrase we won't get fooled again doesn't it?
Maybe we have been :-)
(btw I thought it a great thread title when first saw it!!)
|
|
I see that Sue Gray has resigned?
|
|
Replaced in Downing Street by Morgan McSweeny but Sue Grey will be dealing with the devolved admins and Metro Mayors.
|
|
Didn't last very long post-election did she... I think the title of this thread says it all...
|
She was apparently too honest for Boris in exposing Covid misbehaviour.
Labour party took her on - they were happy to have her - she knew where the bodies were buried and provided superficial reinforcement to the Labour Party's integrity credentials.
Now it seems her reported high standards have proven too much for Sir Kier. Or like many egotistical at the top of government she has been elbowed out by others who find her involvement disagreeable.
|
|
High standards? Well, if you ignore the freebies she accepted, such as the a***nal ticket.
|
|
..and the £10,000 bung from Lord Alli and £4000 from Aslef to fund her son's election campaign whereupon he gets appointed as PPS to Dept. for Transport.
|
>> ..and the £10,000 bung from Lord Alli and £4000 from Aslef to fund her son's
>> election campaign whereupon he gets appointed as PPS to Dept. for Transport.
The donations, certainly that from Aslef, are pretty much normal politics I think.
Whether (a) his selection in a winnable seat and (b) apointment as a Minister's bagman may warrant further investigation; doesn't smell as fresh as I'd like it to.
|
>Whether (a) his selection in a winnable seat and (b) apointment as a Minister's bagman may
>warrant further investigation; doesn't smell as fresh as I'd like it to
..bagman to the Minister responsible for negotiating Aslef members' above inflation pay awards.
|
>> ..bagman to the Minister responsible for negotiating Aslef members' above inflation pay awards.
Fifteen percent over three years from 2022 to 2025?
How far over inflation since the last award is that?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 7 Oct 24 at 16:39
|
>How far over inflation since the last award is that?
Let's avoid any potential for distraction then:
..bagman to the Minister responsible for negotiating Aslef members' pay awards.
|
>> Let's avoid any potential for distraction then:
>>
>> ..bagman to the Minister responsible for negotiating Aslef members' pay awards.
I've not the time to dig down and find which bit of transport the junior whose bag he carries is actually responsible for. Actually we're on the same page; if it doesn't actually smell nasty it's not as fresh as a daisy.
|
>> High standards? Well, if you ignore the freebies she accepted, such as the a***nal ticket.
Where, in this day and age, do we draw the line; when does hospitality become a 'frrebie'?
She's staff so presumably subsect to a code of conduct similar to those elsewhere in the public sector. If whatever was provided was reasonable, proximate to her duties and properly declared per the rules what exactly is wrong?
|
|
" If whatever was provided was reasonable"... it's as much about how it looks these days than whether it conformed.
|
>> " If whatever was provided was reasonable"... it's as much about how it looks these
>> days than whether it conformed.
That's true but I think the pendulum has swung too far.
|
|
One could surmise that the swinging distance was probably determined by the opposition under the previous government :-)
|
Whats reasonable? its very very easy, and every business does it. Its verified expenses. Traveling expenses, office expenses, staff, advertising, consultants, training.
Suits, clothing, education of children, boxes at a***nal, decorating your house, gardeners, housing your mistress/lover, is all out.
Its not a political rant, all parties do it, all of them willingly exploit and develop the gravy train, and its one of the reasons the gen pop generally holds our leaders and governments in contempt. At the end of the day there isn't that much difference between us and a corrupt banana republic.
(can we still quote "banana republic" in these woke days?)
|
>> (can we still quote "banana republic" in these woke days?)
I was in a supermarket this morning (where have all the galias gone?), stood aside to let a women with a trolley pass and she banged it into some shelves. I muttered "women drivers" and fortunately she laughed. I expect you could be hanged for less nowadays.
|
>> Whats reasonable? its very very easy, and every business does it. Its verified expenses. Traveling
>> expenses, office expenses, staff, advertising, consultants, training.
>> Suits, clothing, education of children, boxes at arsenal, decorating your house, gardeners, housing your mistress/lover,
>> is all out.
Agree in principle but where does normal hospitality or entertainment in the course of business fit into that.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 Oct 24 at 11:48
|
>> Agree in principle but where does normal hospitality or entertainment in the course of business
>> fit into that.
It doesn't. Not in any shape or form. Only government funded business
|
>> Didn't last very long post-election did she... I think the title of this thread says
>> it all...
>>
Not overly surprising, probably helped a bit during the GE then at the first sign of trouble she's gone.
|
>> Not overly surprising, probably helped a bit during the GE then at the first sign
>> of trouble she's gone.
It was her or McSweeney.
Not the first time somebody's gone or been redeployed after working relationships broke down and she won't be the last.
|
|
From what I've heard and read they fell out because she's hopeless when dealing with the press.
|
>> From what I've heard and read they fell out because she's hopeless when dealing with
>> the press.
I can believe that. No experience of dealing with the reptiles. Add to that unwilling to delegate.
|
>> >> From what I've heard and read they fell out because she's hopeless when dealing
>> with
>> >> the press.
>>
>> I can believe that. No experience of dealing with the reptiles. Add to that unwilling
>> to delegate.
>>
She'd quite a bit of experience, which was the problem, gained when dealing with partygate. She spoke to them as little as possible due to being burnt last time.
Bit tricky being COS if you don't want to speak to the press...
|
|
Doesn't anyone else think it's a coincidence that the £22bn black hole in finances the tories are claimed to have left the current government, is exactly the same sum this lot are claiming to invest in carbon capture?
|
>> Doesn't anyone else think it's a coincidence that the £22bn black hole in finances the
>> tories are claimed to have left the current government, is exactly the same sum this
>> lot are claiming to invest in carbon capture?
No. The black hole is around spending the outgoing lot committed to in the current FY for which there's no matching income.
Carbon Capture is money they want to borrow to invest in later years.
Similar numbers for sure but not the same pounds.
|
|
And why are they going to spend the £2 billion they are going to raise from private schools on new teachers rather than using it to plug the hole?
|
>> And why are they going to spend the £2 billion they are going to raise
>> from private schools on new teachers rather than using it to plug the hole?
I assume there will be a number drop out from public school into state schools, which will increase the pupil population requiring more teachers.
|
>>Carbon Capture is money they want to borrow to invest in later years.
It is fantasy science being egged on by the fossil industry so they can keep burning s***.
About as likely to succeed as hydrogen cars (ie 0.0%)
£22bn spaffed on wind turbines, solar, pumped hydro, and upgrading the grid would be a whole lot more useful.
|
New boss same as the old boss? - Bromptonaut
