General Election 2024: General UK Politics Discussion here

[Mister Gee]

6 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Are you going to defend Starmer ?

Defend him about what?

[hackey lad]

31 minutes ago, carosio said:

Not sure whether this has been posted before, but see this video by BlackBelt Barrister, about 2 mins in.

 

Can This Get Any Worse? - YouTube

 

This 

[Mister Gee]

8 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

This 

hackeys on a hullabaloo!

[hackey lad]

4 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

hackeys on a hullabaloo!

Guess that's a no then .

[The_DADDY]

2 hours ago, hackey lad said:

The hypocrite .

 

[hackey lad]

19 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

 

[Tony]

18 hours ago, Baron99 said:

And you're forgetting one thing all MP's are entitled to.  To eat & drink in a number of restaurants & bars in central London at tax payer subsidised prices, namely the Palace of Westminster. 

 

Indeed although I believe that it's not subsidised but run not-for-profit which is different.

 

However there is a principle as you suggest. With the Palace of Westminster spending many billions in refurbishment costs there is no justification for its income streams not being for profit, even if that is only to ease the taxpayer burden on the upkeep of their workplace.

[Hotmale 1954]

18 hours ago, crisispoint said:

Should Baron Alli and the Labour party be investigated for corruption?

If it can be proved that Ali received any taxpayers money, or favours rendered for him personally, or any company remotely connected to him, then yes, investigate.

Us lefty yoghurt knitters are the first to call out cronyism and corruption when we encounter it.

When Ali had a 'pass to no 10', he was actually working (for free don't forget) on things for the country's benefit. When he'd done the work, he clocked off.

Now, if favours and money had gone from the Government (our money) to Ali, or his family, then us lefties would have come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

Right wingers on the other hand, from Cabinet down to the racists in the Betting Shops, all lied and covered for Boris then and continue to invent reasons and excuses for his intake of thousands and thousands of pounds. The 'donors' were rewarded with bent PPE contracts, other Government (our) contracts and a job in the House Of Lords.

No comparison with Starmer, Rayner or Reeves in the slightest.

I'm a massive Labour supporter, but at the moment, I'm not happy with Starmer's idea of Socialism.

He's a bit of a mix of Thatcher and Blair. I hope to God he changes in the next few months.

[Tony]

16 hours ago, Mister M said:

I don't know....

At the moment all we know is that Lord Alli is a financial backer of the Labour Party. Has he got anything in return - contracts, lobbying etc?

 

And if politics isn't paid for by individuals or groups, then who is going to pay for it - the taxpayer? Can't see that going down very well.

 

The argument from all sides is that if everything is declared then it is transparent. I'm sure that if Lord Alli had got something in return we would know about it, given the number of journalists dedicated to this.

 

I listened to Any Questions on the radio last week, and the complaint of the Tories isn't that Lord Alli has donated to the Labour Party, but that when in opposition the Labour Party kicked up a fuss about VIP lanes, crony PPE contracts etc. To my mind that's poor - firstly, in the case of Lord Alli, massive amounts of public money has not been abused, secondly Lord Alli hasn't got anything in return, thirdly the Labour Party haven't done anything that the Tories haven't. There is no equivalence between the two.

However whenever the opposition pointed the fingers at the Tories for dodgy deals etc, they raised the expectation that they would be upright.

 

As I said earlier in the thread it doesn't pass the sniff test for many, nor for me either, and the claim that it's "in the rules" might be technically true, but it just means that the rules need tightening up.

 

 

 

He was given a No 10 pass. He doesn't work there, so what else can it be for except lobbying at the Cabinet Table.

 

Is it corruption though you ask? Perhaps the answer lies in another question - would you or I get a No10 pass to lobby on the same things that his Lordship lobbies on? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

 

15 hours ago, Prettytom said:

Well that’s all rather splendidly non specific and unverifiable.

 

The plain facts are that only 7% of students attend private schools. Average fees are more or less £20k pa. That tells us that most of the users of private schools are wealthy and can afford to pay their taxes.

It also tells us that we should be much more interested in the education of the 93% who don’t have wealthy parents willing to stump up tens of thousands of pounds a year.

 

It is the business of government to set the tax regime. It is the business of private enterprises to operate within that tax regime. I’m sure that private schools have plenty of fat to trim before they need to increase fees.

 

Take a moment, a deep breath, forget politics for a moment and ask yourself  a binary question - should education be taxed? Yes / No? 

 

 

[High Chaparral]

It goes from bad to worse for the dreadful Labour government.  Sir Keir Starmer wants Africa to become a permanent member of the United Nations and Rachel Reeves wants to change the fiscal rules in order to borrow more money.  Never has a new government lost credibility as fast as this Labour outfit after such a big general election victory.