• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

UK Politics General Discussion

What will be the result of the UK’s General Election?

  • Conservative Majority

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • Conversative Biggest Party in Hung Parliament

    Votes: 2 1.7%

  • Labour Majority

    Votes: 87 72.5%

  • Labour Biggest Party in Hung Parliament

    Votes: 28 23.3%

  • Other Result (Please specify in your post)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    120
  • Poll closed .
Latest idea is to ban the sale of beer by the pint. 3/4 pint only will be the largest you can buy.

Can we riot now?
 
DiogoJ42 said:
Latest idea is to ban the sale of beer by the pint. 2/3rds only will be the largest you can buy.

Can we riot now?
Click to expand...
That's not true. The idea is 2/3rds as the standard/default unit you can buy. You can also, always, just buy another one...
The government has no plans to remove pints as the largest serving size of draught beer, but former Tory cabinet minister Lord Vaizey told the BBC he thought it was "a good idea" that should not be "dismissed out of hand".
Click to expand...
Source: BBC News - Small beer: Study calls on government to shrink pints - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk

Small beer: Study calls on government to shrink pints

Cambridge University found serving beer in two-thirds of a pint glasses led to a 10% drop in drinking.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Squiggs said:
So, importantly, not something under actual consideration by the government.

The way that the news media cover academic studies is truly baffling sometimes.
Click to expand...
But it is exactly the kind of thing they would do.
 
Doubt it'd be worth the hassle of annoying the amount of people and businesses.

But gets people up in arms over something that wasn't likely to be even considered anytime soon. Good old news media strikes again.


As for the "not bribes honest" stuff, if Starmer earned the most of these ever, does that say more about his tastes or did others not report every gift to them?
 
Its already common for the high strength stuff (over 7%) to come as a 2/3rd pint anyway at some places. Partly to keep the cost similar to the lower strength stuff that is in pints.
 
Worth pointing out as I don’t think the media have mentioned this particularly much, is that any Conservative minister didn’t have to declare - and now Labour are in power they no longer have to declare.

I don’t like the fact that this bloke who bought them clothes was given a Downing Street pass, but can’t find it in myself to get angry that he’s been allowed to watch Arsenal for free.
 
Apparently (sources being Arsenal fans on social media, so big lump of salt here), Starmer still pays for his own season ticket, however because he is now a far bigger security concern the club have recommended he use a box rather than standard seat. Purely due to the security entourage now required.

It is just optics. And the media are seemingly desperate to stick knife in because Labour haven't solved anything since coming into power. Which most level headed people would've known to be pretty much impossible given the state the country was (and still is) in.

100% bet Sunak didn't pay for his Play-off tickets at Southampton last season.
 
I'll wait until that has been confirmed. Still doesn't explain all the free clothes, Taylor Swift tickets and penthouse stays etc etc already though for Free-Gear-Kier and his buddies at the top table anyway. It's not about 'well, the Tories were doing it too'. Labour were digging them out for doing similar, then couldn't wait to get on the gravy train seconds after they got into power. It looks really, really bad. This is just the stuff that's come to light too, so god knows if anything happens in secret. That's the point isn't it. People wonder now what else they might get up to? That could have been avoided by not taking a load of freebies that they didn't need as they're already on a good wage.
 
Oh 100% that's the problem. Though as long as they're legally declaring the gifts etc. there's nothing technically wrong beyond it looking dodgy, especially in current climate.

Though also something that no doubt happens in every country. Because people love power.

It's like that weird story that Sue Gray is earning more than Starmer. Does it really matter in the long run? Or is it because she was involved in Johnson's downfall (and thus the Tory tailspin) that a negatively spun story is printed?
 
I think the problem with the whole saga is that Starmer liked to make a big deal about “Tory sleaze” with regard to similar things when he was in opposition, but is now seemingly engaging in or entertaining some degree of “Labour sleaze” now he’s in power. It’s not quite equivalent to, say, the Partygate saga, but in my view, it’s definitely equivalent to all those little donations, benefits and loopholes that Starmer liked to publicly complain about the Tories benefitting from when they were in power.

Whether it is or not, it seems a tad hypocritical, and only serves to reinforce the notion that “they’re all the same as each other” that breeds apathy and distrust in politics and allows movements like populism to gain ground.
 
The furore around the glasses has me scratching my head a little. My most recent pair of spectacles cost £560, the cheapest element of them were the "designer" frames. I have two pairs of glasses, one ordinary and another sunglasses (also on prescription), totalling just over £900.

The figure of £2,000 on glasses doesn't appear extravagant to me, someone with a very expensive prescription. It's just par the course when the market is controlled by a monopolistic player. Please can we break up EssilorLuxottica?

Obviously terrible optics (pun intended) in the present climate.

I see we have forgotten about the £112,549 donated to Boris Johnson for the 10 Downing Street redecoration. Of course the major issue with that particular controversy was that Johnson claimed he didn't know where the money had come from, or who has donated it, but then had been caught lying about that too.

I do see that good ol' Nige is keeping schtum on this one. Could it possibly be because this is how he's funded his entire political career, and current party?

The claim that Starmer has received more grace and favour gifts, or donations, than Rishi Sunak is also quite laughable when you remember that Sunak is wealthier than the King.
 
Always a weird one with footballers. Private companies are allowed to pay whatever they want.

Few of them are worth their salaries. Much like Thames Water's bosses.
 
Matt N said:
I think the problem with the whole saga is that Starmer liked to make a big deal about “Tory sleaze” with regard to similar things when he was in opposition, but is now seemingly engaging in or entertaining some degree of “Labour sleaze” now he’s in power. It’s not quite equivalent to, say, the Partygate saga, but in my view, it’s definitely equivalent to all those little donations, benefits and loopholes that Starmer liked to publicly complain about the Tories benefitting from when they were in power.

Whether it is or not, it seems a tad hypocritical, and only serves to reinforce the notion that “they’re all the same as each other” that breeds apathy and distrust in politics and allows movements like populism to gain ground.
Click to expand...
This isn't "sleaze" by any measure. It only becomes such if this impacts the decisions he makes in government. It's important to note that individuals getting free stuff is not a crime. What you do as a result of receiving the free stuff is where the sleaze could potentially creep in.

But I do agree with your sentiment. I roll my eyes every time a politician makes a white knight gesture, as something will always be whipped up in the media to try and prove otherwise. By saying all that stuff, he basically put a target on his back. This is nothing like the genuine sleaze of the last government, but anything that remotely looks like it will be picked up on and flaunted by the likes of the Telegraph and Daily Hatemail should have been considered beforehand.

Starmers biggest mistake, yet again, is PR incompetence. He's done nothing that every other politician who came before him hasn't done, yet he's stood on some whiter than white platform so was always going to get attacked for this.

Now I'm not saying that it isn't right to haul the Prime Minister through the ringer, and question everything he does. I also think that one of the few remaining good things about this country is that we can openly question and criticise who leads us. But here are a few facts to consider.

1. Notice how only Nigel Farage, the millionaire "man of the people" has made anything of this? You know, the guy who campaigned to leave the European Union, but was more than happy to accept their lavish expenses and hospitality when he worked for them as an MEP? Why isn't John Swinney, Ed Davey, Rishi Sunak, or any of the Tory leadership hopefuls jumping up and down on this? Simply it's because they're all being wined and dined themselves, just probably not to the extent of the Prime Minister as they're not figures who are as important.

2. Cabinet Ministers do not have to declare all the gratuities they receive, only opposition MP's do. That's probably why the Tories are staying tight lipped. As leader of the opposition, Starmer declared his, government ministers at the time did not.

3. Starmer does in fact hold an Arsenal season ticket, paid for out of this own money. To use it, it would require more expense to the taxpayer in security costs if he was stood in the stands with everyone else as opposed to the directors box. Sounds like an excuse I know, but it's true nonetheless.

4. In terms of costs, Starmer declared around a third in 5 years as Leader of the Opposition, than that of Boris Johnson's interior design of Downing Street. And Boris tried to cover that up, Starmer declared this stuff.

5. No other Prime Minister before Stamer has ever pledged to stop receiving free stuff. (another mistake from him I feel, as what he's pledged is practically impossible).
 
Politician receives free gifts really is a non-story imo, for years it’s been one of the perks of the job, how they pop up at cup finals, concerts and the likes.

The real scandal is when the free gifts actually buy influence in government decisions, but that would actually require proper investigative journalism.
 
Todays Mail on Sunday front page headline regards a scrounging prime minister who has brazenly gone to the footie on a freebie ticket.
Never before have I heard of a politician getting into a match without paying.
Absolutely scandalous, and completely unacceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top