[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[dsr-burnley]

You seemed to be terribly confused between asylum and legal immigration. Given your posting history, that really is no surprise. Right wing populism seeks to conflate the two.

Perhaps educate yourself here or post on a Burnley forum instead where the need to deciphor the difference between an asylum seeker and someone seeking legal immigration is clearly not needed:

The truth about safe and legal routes

We are Amnesty International UK. We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.

www.amnesty.org.uk

Are there any official statistics about how many of these cross-Channel immigrants are genuine asylum seekers desperate to get away from France, and how many are would-be economic migrants who can't get in legally? If there aren't, it's inevitable that the two will be conflated.

However, let me clarify. IMO the people who are genuine asylum seekers trying to escape from France to the UK might be (but might not) be put off by an increase in asylum offices around the world. The people who are economic migrants will not. If the majority of Channel crossers are economic migrants, then opening asylum centres would make no difference.

(I won't join in a personal abuse and contempt campaign. I don't see how it helps.)

 

[nevergoagain]

Sooooooo watching Starmer squirm in Italy he's not at all ruling out adopting a similar plan to the Italy/Albania plan. I know the differences are successful claimants would return to Italy and the process managed under Italian law. Would it not have made more sense if that's the road he's going to go down to do the same with the Rwanda plan and amend it rather than just tear it up and throw away all the sunk costs ?.

 

[Eeyore]

Ha! Good to see the BBC finally break this story tonight.

As with most things, NSC was weeks ahead in revealing the inside info concerning the rifts and growing exasperation amongst the Cabinet regarding Sue Gray. Even if some on here refused to believe it.

I wonder what interesting texts and WhatsApp messages will be flying around Westminster this week, now the Beeb has flushed this out into the open…?

I reckon Sue Gray is Dominic Cummings after the operation. He's back, I tell you.

 

[nevergoagain]

I reckon Sue Gray is Dominic Cummings after the operation. He's back, I tell you.

Shudder, I wouldn't wish a female version of that nasty snake on anyone.

 

[Molango's visa]

Given that Starmer is apparently already being judged negatively what do people want from a UK government? Would they vote for a party that promises to lower tax and increase public spending knowing this is impossible? Is it that people will vote for the unpalatable truth or are they more attracted to unrealistic optimism? My feeling is the silent majority remain the majority and the noise is premature. This thread bolted too soon

 

[Is it PotG?]

Given that Starmer is apparently already being judged negatively what do people want from a UK government? Would they vote for a party that promises to lower tax and increase public spending knowing this is impossible? Is it that people will vote for the unpalatable truth or are they more attracted to unrealistic optimism? My feeling is the silent majority remain the majority and the noise is premature. This thread bolted too soon

Either way, time will be the judge.

Let's see where it goes .....

 

[Is it PotG?]

The Chancellor has been urged to launch a £2bn inheritance tax raid on family homes.

Rachel Reeves is facing calls to abolish the £175,000 residence nil-rate band in the Budget on October 30.

The Resolution Foundation said there was “a good case” for scrapping the allowance which allows homeowners to shield an extra £175,000 of their wealth from inheritance tax.

 

[pocketseagull]

Looks like the Residence Nil-Rate Band was introduced in 2015 at the height of austerity, not really the right priority for the country at that time., makes sense to scrap it.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Given that Starmer is apparently already being judged negatively what do people want from a UK government? Would they vote for a party that promises to lower tax and increase public spending knowing this is impossible? Is it that people will vote for the unpalatable truth or are they more attracted to unrealistic optimism? My feeling is the silent majority remain the majority and the noise is premature. This thread bolted too soon

Spending tax as if it was their own money would be a good start.

Starmer himself said last week of the NHS, "It's reform or die"

Money is not the only answer.

(Mrs works in the NHS and is staggered by the waste on a daily basis)

 

[RandyWanger]

Spending tax as if it was their own money would be a good start.

Exactly, seeing as most of us spend 5 months each year working just to pay for the government, the least they could do was cut the fraud and waste.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Exactly, seeing as most of us spend 5 months each year working just to pay for the government, the least they could do was cut the fraud and waste.

Give them time , there are billions to be recovered from Covid fraud first of all.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I've read the story.

Yes, he was late in declaring - certainly a mistake, but as you say he was seeking advise, I get that.

That's not the story here.

Why is he taking these donations? Why is another man paying for his wife's clothes? (And his glasses!) - it's a terrible look - the money coming from a huge donor to the LP who is then given access to Downing Street.

I'd actually pay MPs (and certainly the PM) a LOT more money - and then have ZERO gifts/donations allowed.

The story here is that KS told us we were entering a new era of open and honest politics, with a much higer level of integrity, and within two months he's failed.

Coming on top of the WFA fiasco, he's having a (self-inflicted) tough fortnight.

Johnson, Truss and Sunak were all found to have broken the parliamentary rules (in some cases many times) on not registering gifts and financial interests in the Register of member's financial interests.

So now Starmer, who hasn't broken any rules (or laws, see above) and is doing exactly what parliamentary rules say he should do, isn't showing a 'higher level of integrity' with regards to the Register of Financial Interests ?

Because some NSCers have decided that 'to show a higher level of integrity' he also has to meet a number of criteria decided by them, beyond any parliamentary rules, but never explained on NSC prior to the last day, despite the fact that this register has been getting published for the last 50 years.

And the Sunday Times publishing a couple of extracts from his submission a day ago was obviously just coincidence

But carry on

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Johnson, Truss and Sunak were all found to have broken the parliamentary rules (in some cases many times) on not registering gifts and financial interests in the Register of member's financial interests.

So now Starmer, who hasn't broken any rules and is doing exactly what parliamentary rules says he should do, isn't showing a 'higher level of integrity' with regards to the Register of Financial Interests ?

Because some NSCers have decided that 'to show a higher level of integrity' he also has to meet a number of criteria decided by them, beyond any parliamentary rules, but never explained on NSC prior to the last couple of days, despite the fact that this register has been getting published for the last 50 years.

And the Sunday Times publishing a couple of extracts from his submission a day ago was obviously just coincidence

But carry on

I'm not interested in Johnson, Truss and Sunak - all broke the rules - agreed - there's no argument there - two now gone and the other one soon to go - bye bye.

Why, however can a few (in fact I think it's only you) people not see that we're not talking about whether he broke the rules or not (personally I don't think he did he was just taking advice, which he's entitled to do) - stop talking about whether he broke the rules or not.

What we're talking about is him taking significant donations to get someone to pay for his glasses and his wife's clothes. This person who gave the money was also given a pass to enter Downing Street.

Why is he taking these donations?

If you don't think this is a bad look, awful PR, having promised us all 'higher level of integrity' then more fool you.

But you carry on with that blinkered vision

 

[Chicken Run]

Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout Johnson, Truss and Sunak were all found to have broken the parliamentary rules (in some cases many times) on not registering gifts and financial interests in the Register of member's financial interests.

You could of course start a thread on those three? Oh wait a minute

 

[Weststander]

The Chancellor has been urged to launch a £2bn inheritance tax raid on family homes.

Rachel Reeves is facing calls to abolish the £175,000 residence nil-rate band in the Budget on October 30.

The Resolution Foundation said there was “a good case” for scrapping the allowance which allows homeowners to shield an extra £175,000 of their wealth from inheritance tax.

The Resolution Foundation aren’t the government. They’re lobbying for whole series of changes on a daily basis, as are other think tanks at a more relaxed rate such as the IFS.

 

[Weststander]

I'm not interested in Johnson, Truss and Sunak - all broke the rules - agreed - there's no argument there - two now gone and the other one soon to go - bye bye.

Why, however can a few (in fact I think it's only you) people not see that we're not talking about whether he broke the rules or not (personally I don't think he did he was just taking advice, which he's entitled to do) - stop talking about whether he broke the rules or not.

What we're talking about is him taking significant donations to get someone to pay for his glasses and his wife's clothes. This person who gave the money was also given a pass to enter Downing Street.

Why is he taking these donations?

If you don't think this is a bad look, awful PR, having promised us all 'higher level of integrity' then more fool you.

But you carry on with that blinkered vision

Even James O’Brien was critical today. Ranging from “stupid”, to why would someone on £180k accept gifts from a donor and he didn’t accept that the expensive clothes were needed to shed the UK in a good light at functions. Pointing out that quality items can be bought for a small fraction of the £19k out of someones own pocket.

 

[BenGarfield]

Given that Starmer is apparently already being judged negatively what do people want from a UK government? Would they vote for a party that promises to lower tax and increase public spending knowing this is impossible? Is it that people will vote for the unpalatable truth or are they more attracted to unrealistic optimism? My feeling is the silent majority remain the majority and the noise is premature. This thread bolted too soon

Yes you could lower tax and increase spending

 

[Is it PotG?]

The Resolution Foundation aren’t the government. They’re lobbying for whole series of changes on a daily basis, as are other think tanks at a more relaxed rate such as the IFS.

I am fully aware of who they are.

 

[Weststander]

I am fully aware of who they are.

Who doesn’t? I’m saying they’re being plugged a lot just now, the Telegraph has a scare story about them every day to raise the temperature.

They’re unelected entity that carries no more weight than other similar bodies.

 

[nevergoagain]

So the Junior doctors have accepted their 22% pay rise but a 3rd of them didn't back it. The BMA also making a stinging comment that it expected further above inflation rises in future years or there would be "consequences". Sounds like a bit of a threat to me and labour now kicking a very very expensive can down the road until they come back for more as the Unions inevitably will.