-
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
- Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
If you work for a local authority you have it drilled into you not to accept freebies from the public or business because of optics. Once again politicians don't have to follow the same standards as everyone else. I don't really care what or was not accepted by individual politicians, it's the double standards I don't like.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
Keir Starmer has not been receiving freebies from the public. He's been receiving, and declaring, gifts from a fellow colleague and a member of his party. Lord Alli has been a Labour peer since 1998.
There aren't any double standards here.
Oh there are you know...but only in the right wing media.
So I just need wealthier colleagues who can send me gifts then.
Matt.GC
TS Member
It's drilled into us not to accept gifts for favours either. As far as I'm aware, no favours have been granted, unless you include a Labour peer visiting Downing street, the seat of a Labour Government, a "favour"? Didn't the last Tory Government also allow a Tory peer access to Downing Street? Some bloke involved in the Greensil scandal in fact? Lord Cameron I think his name was. They even made him a minister.
We have a yearly training module on it. But that doesn't stop trade unions and suppliers funding our conferences every year, giving us gift bags, supplying booze and food. Or my boss buying me a birthday present every year. Or his boss giving me a a bottle of bubbly at Christmas. Or the area beanos like bowling.
Once again, this has been completely blown out of proportion. If you read the reports in the Telegraph and Daily Hatemail carefully, they stop short of accusing government ministers of anything untoward, just loads of allusions to "oh isn't terrible, aren't they evil? They're taking your winter voting bribe away whilst being lavished with gifts. And that awful Angela Rayner even went on a holiday! What terrible people they are."
All written by journalists who are probably being wined and dined by opposition politicians themselves to write nasty stories about their political enemies. And their millionaire media baron bosses by even more.
Again, not a good look and terrible timing. But sadly, customary practice. Boo, "it's one rule for them, and another for the rest of us", Hiss "they're all the same" and all that, yada yada. Bearing in mind the Autumn Budget is coming up at a time when national debt has just hit 100% of GDP after 14 years of breathtaking financial mismanagement, we should think ourselves lucky if this is the single biggest thing they do (when they were in opposition I might add) that has an impact on our lives this year.
We have a yearly training module on it. But that doesn't stop trade unions and suppliers funding our conferences every year, giving us gift bags, supplying booze and food. Or my boss buying me a birthday present every year. Or his boss giving me a a bottle of bubbly at Christmas. Or the area beanos like bowling.
Once again, this has been completely blown out of proportion. If you read the reports in the Telegraph and Daily Hatemail carefully, they stop short of accusing government ministers of anything untoward, just loads of allusions to "oh isn't terrible, aren't they evil? They're taking your winter voting bribe away whilst being lavished with gifts. And that awful Angela Rayner even went on a holiday! What terrible people they are."
All written by journalists who are probably being wined and dined by opposition politicians themselves to write nasty stories about their political enemies. And their millionaire media baron bosses by even more.
Again, not a good look and terrible timing. But sadly, customary practice. Boo, "it's one rule for them, and another for the rest of us", Hiss "they're all the same" and all that, yada yada. Bearing in mind the Autumn Budget is coming up at a time when national debt has just hit 100% of GDP after 14 years of breathtaking financial mismanagement, we should think ourselves lucky if this is the single biggest thing they do (when they were in opposition I might add) that has an impact on our lives this year.
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
Following controversy regarding a “dysfunctional” environment in No 10, Sue Gray, the writer of the Partygate report widely considered to have led to Boris Johnson’s downfall, has now resigned as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...of-staff-downing-street?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5
She has been replaced by Morgan McSweeney, a key architect in Labour’s recent election victory who has been involved in Labour politics since the days of Blair. Gray herself has switched to a new government role, now being the envoy for regions and nations.
I know it hasn’t been all that long, but despite having voted Labour, I must admit that I’m not terribly encouraged by the initial days of the Starmer government. I hope it’s just growing pains and that the new administration will eventually settle in, but despite all of Starmer’s talk about “returning politics to public service”, it seems like his government is every bit as mired in controversy and sleaze as some of the previous Tory governments, if not more so, and we’re less than 100 days in. They’ve done some stuff I agree with and I think is good, but it doesn’t seem like much has changed since the Tory predecessors for me, overall.
It could just be a matter of time, but I am a bit disappointed by the Starmer government overall so far.
She has been replaced by Morgan McSweeney, a key architect in Labour’s recent election victory who has been involved in Labour politics since the days of Blair. Gray herself has switched to a new government role, now being the envoy for regions and nations.
I know it hasn’t been all that long, but despite having voted Labour, I must admit that I’m not terribly encouraged by the initial days of the Starmer government. I hope it’s just growing pains and that the new administration will eventually settle in, but despite all of Starmer’s talk about “returning politics to public service”, it seems like his government is every bit as mired in controversy and sleaze as some of the previous Tory governments, if not more so, and we’re less than 100 days in. They’ve done some stuff I agree with and I think is good, but it doesn’t seem like much has changed since the Tory predecessors for me, overall.
It could just be a matter of time, but I am a bit disappointed by the Starmer government overall so far.
Last edited:
Matt.GC
TS Member
Citation definitely needed! How on earth did you come anywhere near this conclusion?
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
That’s not a statistically backed conclusion, admittedly, but more my own sentiment.
It seems like the government’s sleaze and infighting is still very much filling the airwaves in the manner that that of the previous Tory governments did. It seems like you hear a new, controversial headline about the Labour government every day at the moment, whether it be Starmer and his allies getting more freebies or drama with Sue Gray and the allegedly “dysfunctional” inner workings of No 10. Admittedly, we haven’t yet had a Partygate or anything overly bad by any stretch of the imagination, but I had hoped that Starmer might be different and put an end to all the sleaze, infighting and controversy. Thus far, it certainly doesn’t seem like it.
I had hoped that Labour might feel like a breath of fresh air after 14 years of the Tories, but as much as I know that they’re not “all the same as each other”, Labour have not been the breath of fresh air I was hoping for so far and it doesn’t seem like much has really changed. I guess I had hoped that after an overwhelmingly negative political landscape for what feels like pretty much my whole memorable life, Labour might finally change things and make things feel a bit more positive again, but thus far, it doesn’t seem like it.
Although as I say, it could well be a matter of time. This could all just be growing pains; Starmer might get better with more time in the job, and I’m willing to give them the chance and hope that that is the case.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
When you look at which papers are driving the news agenda, which then feeds into broadcast media, it's unsurprising that they can make mountains out of perfectly legal molehills. Especially when you consider who they're owned by, or which other feeder organisations are giving them the information.
Our news system works like this:
The papers, which don't have impartiality rules, publish their front pages the evening before the paper is available. This sets the domestic news agenda for broadcast channels, which do have to abide by impartiality rules (allegedly). The morning shows have pundits for the government, private interest lobbyist groups and the opposition on to discuss the news agenda, set by the papers the following evening. The rest of the day is spent reporting on what the morning pundits said, sprinkled in with breaking news announcements or updates on the evolving newspaper set stories. The evening news is a wrap up of everything that's gone before. At 11pm the papers release their front pages and we start again.
Sue Gray and party donations are two interesting cases in point. Do you know who else got paid more than the Prime Minister at the time? Dominic Cummings. Who currently gets paid more than the Prime Minister? Editors of The Daily Mail, Express and, The Times and The Sun.
Party donations. Did you know that last week, the current favourite for the Tory party leadership, Robert Kendrick accepted £75,000 from a company registered in a tax haven without any employees?
It's no secret that government announcements and policy are driven by The Daily Mail test. Is it going to anger The Daily Mail? Probably best to avoid it. Until we break this cycle, any real progressive change for the left is impossible.
Matt.GC
TS Member
I'm more interested in how you can come to the conclusion that this government is anywhere near, in any way shape or form, what we had before? You seem to have expressed sentiment, but I'm baffled as to where this has came from? You specifically said "every bit as" and then "if not more so". How is any of this akin to illegal cocaine fueled parties in Number 10 where people vomitted up the walls? How is this similar to lying about driving all the way to Durham to take an eye test? Or illegally shutting down parliament to avoid democratic scrutiny? I could go on. This isn't even the Bernie Ecclestone levels of bad form that dogged Blair's first few months in office.
Firstly, what did anyone expect? A party that was not popular won a landslide victory. They made the stupid mistake of making promises they couldn't keep around public standards, which immediately laid the groundwork for a very hostile media to start digging around cupboards for skeletons. They didn't find any skeletons, just a skeleton Halloween costume, but continued to pretend it was a real skeleton anyway. Because that's what you get when you make a silly promise of no more skeletons!
They made what in my opinion was an excellent and brave decision, to adopt a policy that was politically toxic. They announced it before the summer recess to allow misinformation to run wild without scrutiny, and have failed to defend it, only feabily apologising for it rather than standing by it and fighting their case (which is strong and evidence based). "We didn't want to do it, it was the Tories, the mess we inherited" etc etc.
Be warned, there's plenty more to come. Reeves painted herself into a corner by making unkeepable promises to stick to her fiscal rules, which she'll row back on any day now (and should do). Rather than this pretend stuff, the actual sleaze will inevitably start soon. Some MP will be caught wearing a gimp mask doing unsavoury things to an animal or something any day now. Always happens. With the dreadful state of the country right now, there's plenty of unpopular decisions that rightly should be made to sort it out, so brace yourself for the inevitable traditional and social media backlash and hyperbole.
Let's break down what's actually happened:
- The government have very poorly handled an unpopular policy announcement.
- The Prime Minister and his cabinet were given loads of freebies, just like other MP's in their positions that came before them (that last fact is rarely mentioned).
- A Labour MP has been found to be a dodgy landlord.
- The Downing Street chief of staff gets paid a salary more than that of the Prime Minister (I don't see why this is an issue?).
- A Labour Lord, would you believe, is a Labour party donor! Shocker!
- A Labour Lord - you know, one of those people that sit in parliament and can serve in the cabinet - has been allowed into Downing Street, the seat of a Labour government.
This is all hardly Profumo, Back-to-Basics, or Partygate is it?
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
Fair enough; you make good points. Perhaps I was minimising just how bad some of what happened under the 2019-2024 Tory government actually was; when you reel it off like that, it is quite a list of some rather dodgy stuff.
My question is; why have the media latched onto the happenings of the Labour government and made it into a huge controversy with Starmer if it happened under previous governments? I guess I just hoped that with Starmer entering, we could see a more positive discourse around politics again and all this infighting and drama go away, and that doesn’t seem to have happened. I get that many of the media interests in this country are right-wing, but I’ve always felt like blaming “the right-wing media” for anything that goes wrong in left-wing government sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to some extent, similar to Liz Truss blaming “the deep state” for everything that went wrong in her government.
I don’t disagree that there are tough choices to be made, and I do think the winter fuel payment means testing was a good idea that we eventually needed to tackle (albeit I’m not sure I agree with the exact small print of how it’s being implemented). Pensions have been a ticking time bomb for years, with an increasing amount of elderly people requiring them and a decreasing amount of working age people to pay for them. However, there seems to be increasing evidence that some policies, such as the VAT on private schools (which I initially agree with in principle), may potentially overload the state sector further and make things worse, and it doesn’t feel like there’s been much positivity or positive happenings since Starmer came in. Everything they’ve done so far has felt very negatively driven rather than a change to make people’s lives better or make things more positive.
Perhaps it’s just me irrationally hoping that Starmer coming in would inject some positive spirit and eventually reinstate a “golden age” similar to the Blair years, where everything apparently worked and the political discourse was largely positive. That doesn’t seem to have happened thus far, and the political discourse seems every bit as scandalous, negative and dramatic as it was before the election. Since Starmer came in, it’s simply felt like doom and gloom, with the scandals, the cuts, and the right wing riots as well (admittedly not Starmer’s fault).
I sometimes feel like I was born around 20 years too late when it comes to politics. Back in the 90s, it sounds like the country was some sort of utopia (for lack of a better term), with the Blair years in particular being brilliant and so positive for the country, whereas it seems like the current UK political discourse is just constant doom and gloom with nothing working well or being positive. One of the first major political events in my time being aware of politics was Brexit (which I thought was a terrible idea even at 13, and while I accepted the referendum result and have tried to give it a fair chance since, I’m yet to be convinced otherwise thus far), and since then, it just seems like everything’s been so unstable and negative. I guess I’m sad to have missed out on what many consider the “golden age”; everything just feels so negative these days, whereas the 90s/early 2000s sounded like such a positive period where everything (or a lot of things, at least) was supposedly better.
I’m hoping that Starmer might reinstate some of that positive spirit from the 90s/2000s, but it doesn’t seem to be happening so far. Perhaps, like our good friends Bianca Samut and Scott O’Neil at Alton Towers and Merlin, it will be a slow burn process that will take many years. Although in the case of Alton/Merlin, there does seem to have been some positivity, more so than with Starmer’s new government.
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
Because Starmer isn't their guy, he's not their man, he's not their pick, he doesn't align with their political ambitions or views.
I brought up Robert Jenrick's donations in my previous post, because he is possibly about to become leader of the opposition. He has just received £75,000 from one donor for his leadership campaign. This is more than the £39,000 Lord Alli donated to Keir Starmer's Prime Ministerial election campaign. Originally Jenrick's donor was masked behind a shell company, and the individual wasn't named on the record, but they have since come forward to identify themselves.
How many weeks have you hard about Lord Alli's donations for? Is today the first time you've heard about Jenrick's donor? The answers to this question will help you see how distorted this really all is.
Robert Jenrick faces more funding questions after donor comes forward
Tory leadership contender received donations totalling £75,000 from firm that was loaned money via a tax haven
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
I honestly think that we should force print news/newspapers to be impartial at this point, similar to broadcast news.
At times, I genuinely find it hard to know what to believe and what to trust when reading the news. It’s sometimes hard to know what’s the unbiased truth and what’s being spun to fit someone’s agenda, in my view. If I feel that way, as someone who tries to keep relatively abreast with politics, then I can imagine that it must be even harder for people who are less into politics.
As someone whose political views, while not strong, probably fall more towards the left of the spectrum, I try not to be swallowed up in too much of a left-wing echo chamber and try to read a wider range of sources. That does mean that I often find myself reading outlets like The Telegraph, which can seem a bit right-biased at times. Although I do take The Telegraph specifically with a pinch of salt, as it does sometimes say things that I instinctively disagree with; there was an article on there the other day, for example, saying that Starmer had had the worst initial days of any prime minister ever for entirely self-inflicted reasons, and that Liz Truss had simply “been unlucky” in her initial days… I personally vehemently disagree with that, but each to their own.
At times, I genuinely find it hard to know what to believe and what to trust when reading the news. It’s sometimes hard to know what’s the unbiased truth and what’s being spun to fit someone’s agenda, in my view. If I feel that way, as someone who tries to keep relatively abreast with politics, then I can imagine that it must be even harder for people who are less into politics.
As someone whose political views, while not strong, probably fall more towards the left of the spectrum, I try not to be swallowed up in too much of a left-wing echo chamber and try to read a wider range of sources. That does mean that I often find myself reading outlets like The Telegraph, which can seem a bit right-biased at times. Although I do take The Telegraph specifically with a pinch of salt, as it does sometimes say things that I instinctively disagree with; there was an article on there the other day, for example, saying that Starmer had had the worst initial days of any prime minister ever for entirely self-inflicted reasons, and that Liz Truss had simply “been unlucky” in her initial days… I personally vehemently disagree with that, but each to their own.
Last edited:
Squiggs
TS Team
I think the issue you've run into is that the government may have changed but the media landscape has not.
And you know what sells newspapers? Scandal, negativity and drama. Real, made up, or overhyped, it doesn't really matter - the overall effect is the same.