Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

In this instance she is trying to suggest her words are being twisted, even though she used the words of someone writing about complicity (his own and others) through their silence in Nazi atrocities.

There’s no parallels there, I feel. The smoking ban is about saving lives/health (both of the smoker and those around them) than persecuting someone who believe the wrong thing.

I don’t think she can have any complaints that her intent is being misconstrued.

[anewaname]

It would be fair to say she should have used plain words to describe her disapproval of the expected policy, instead of attempting to leverage the poem, because the poem comes with a lot of other baggage. Rather than attacking her for misusing the poem, her opponents could have criticized her as "too stupid to respond in her own words, that she needed to borrow a bludgeon from another argument".

At the core of it, there should be areas where the smokers can smoke and drink, and there should be areas where non-smokers can drink without 2nd-hand smoke, and it all should happen encouraging people to smoke. Farage responded to the smoking ban idea well with his defense of outdoor smoking and also put it in a broader context of guiding society towards objectives rather than than coercing society.

[Great Order]

Labour's embroiled in a not-corruption-because-it's-legal scandal already, and for some stupid reason they've decided this is the hill they want to die on. They keep fighting to defend it when a mea culpa would have done so much better on damage control. Hell, if they wanted to keep taking "donations", they could have cut back on the most egregious stuff or the headline bait and kept going with them.

[hector13]

They haven’t broken any rules, though?

It’s a bit cheeky to be accepting lavish gifts while they try to freeze pensioners and chat about having to otherwise tighten their belts because they inherited such a mess from the Tories (though that argument is wearing thin for me, personally) but it’s basically business as usual for politicians.

[Il Palazzo]

Why though? Why is this business as usual? This is so weird to me, that they just accept it as a fact of life that you get freebies as a politician. There's no way to spin it to the public that doesn't smell of dodgy integrity.

[hector13]

Because they’re the ones who make the rules, and they’re not going to take away their free toys in much the same way they’re always going to vote to give themselves pay rises.

[Great Order]

They haven’t broken any rules, though?

Well yes, that's why I called it not-corruption-because-it's-legal. They're accepting money from private interests and it'd be woefully naive to pretend said interests are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It's only not called corruption because the government's *made* it legal.

[hector13]

They haven’t broken any rules, though?

Well yes, that's why I called it not-corruption-because-it's-legal. They're accepting money from private interests and it'd be woefully naive to pretend said interests are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It's only not called corruption because the government's *made* it legal.

They have to declare it in the register of interests though, which is why everyone knows about it and is able to report on it.

The BBC recently outlined who received gifts of sporting tickets, sorted by the sporting association that provided the gifts and then further sorted by political party.

This in contrast to Boris Johnson “not remembering” who paid for the refurbishment of the PMs flat, despite it later turning out he asked Lord Brownlow for permission to proceed on getting the interior decorator in to do it, and the subsequent fine to the Tories for not reporting it properly, as required by law.

It is (unfairly, really, since everybody does it) quite disgusting that Labour complained about the Tories getting away with things like this as they continue to benefit themselves, particularly in light of austerity 2.0 they are getting on with now and trying to blame the Tories for… but that’s the way the system works.

MPs used to get to vote for their salaries, but now it’s “independently” set, and they still get above inflation pay rises on salaries already way beyond the median salary in the UK. I can’t imagine it would be any different if there were an independent organization scrutinizing gifts to politicians.

Edit to move a parenthetical that was in the wrong place which made it seem as though I was being more critical of Labour than the Tories.

[Starver]

Confused why it's now a matter of comment.  It was last week when it 'broke' (bascially someone's knickers in a twist about them not being holier-than-thou enough), and seemed to fill a 'silly season' slot prior to the party conference when they were essentially holding back on entertaining the press with announcements of all other kinds because they were saving things for the conference itself. So someone mentions that (completely transparent) receipt of gifts had happened, as if it was being done underhandedly.


The bit about the Labour donor who got a pass to Number 10 might have been worth a look or three (a variation on 'cash for questions', perhaps? ...an opportunity to come in and have a chat about whatever was on his mind?), although I'm not entirely sure that's even as painted. I imagine loads of people get (temporary) passes for all kinds of scheduled and ad hoc reasons, and darn sure that it happened plenty under 'the other lot'.


If the question is "should politicians gleefully accept donations towards their wardrobes, or should they hang, draw and quarter anybody who comes within a mile of them with an M&S voucher>" then that's one thing. Complaining that Starmer should not have done what is a long standing convention, that the non-partisan Civil Service advisers will be more than prepared to log'n'list in the relevent Records of Interests (and a similar form of this was probably already a thing to offocial Oppositions and all other parliamentary parties), would seem like a decision that needs a spark of realisation and actual intent to forgoe the practice. (And, no, the quantities involved aren't useful to say "instead of donating these few things to us, donate them to a clothing bank for the needy... probably wouldn't have assisted more than a handful of recipients and the dint it would make in national poverty would have not even been worth mentioning.


A whole lot of nonsense.


If you want something to wonder about, the fact that Starmer is having a chat with one Presidential (re-)Hopeful, in his US visit, but has seemingly been unable to schedule a meet with the other one. Or complain about his intent to put up electricity pylons (if that's something that worries you... though apparently not the Labour Faithful), or something else that has been more recently raised. The clothes/etc thing seems to me just to be a petty complaint that sparks of desperation by detractors (and doesn't bother the true supporters - myself being neither, by my own assessment). Slow-News-Day stuff, only flaring up because there was a brief lull in anything more worthwhile to mention that wasn't already troublesome for more than just Starmer/Labour.