Wow! Starmer owns a field. Clearly not fit to be leader

Not just any old field though is it? At a cool £10 million plus, I doubt he bought it to graze his horse .

Wow, that's some luxury housing for donkeys

He bought it for a donkey sanctuary for his mother. It is only worth 10 million if you sell it for housing development, which he hasn't.

Wish I had trained as a Barrister, I could do a lot on £400 ph !

If the money he used to purchase it, was earned legitimately, it is nobody's business what he does with it.
Unless there is more to it, it's a non story.

Try reading the whole story, not just the headline, gillybob. It isn't even worth that now. It's on greenbelt land. The whole thing is speculation.

OTH, why shouldn't he own a field?

Aaah I have read the whole article MaizieD and I feel that there is slightly more to it than meets the eye.

Locals fear that the field will be sold for development as there is pressure “to sacrifice green belt for housing” . How convenient that he might be pressurised to sell it . The house that it is attached to (of which he owns half) is already up for sale at over £400k .

He is no different to all the other champagne socialists.

How many donkeys were kept there, 7 acres is a quite a large
field.

The question is though, does it make him unfit to be leader?

Or is earning £250000 for a couple of hours work more likely to make you and unfit leader?

Or does lying to your employer disqualify you?

Or does working your way from an ordinary working class background to a top QC disqualify you.

Or does having an entitled background who privilege, wealth and entitlement disqualify you?

Or should we ignore the nonsense that this newspaper spews?

Personally I would go for the latter

Whitewave you didn’t ignore the nonsense , you thought it
worthy of a thread.

One of the reasons the rag has been so busy with its nonsense

Keir Starmer (LAB): +24 (+6)
Nicola Sturgeon (SNP): +15 (+7)
Boris Johnson (CON): +10 (-10)
Ed Davey (LD): -4 (+3)
Nigel Farage (BRX): -20 (+2)

They obviously are short of newsworthy stuff - not that it ever stops them peddling rubbish. What's wrong with buying a field? My first husband bought the house next door to his parents - simply to rent it out and control what kind of neighbours they had.

And a lot of people purchase property to pass onto their children and live out their lives, but Labour wanted to tax them for it. A garden tax, a mansion tax and seize empty properties that were not theirs.

It is a nice story about the donkeys but remember there are real people behind those who Labour would go after too.

annie yes the contradiction did occur to me tbh???

I admit to not liking the man. Nothing to do with his field, his wealth or his hourly rate. More to do with his “other” failures that he would prefer brushed under the carpets.

Still , if I was a betting person I would put a few £ on that field being sold to developers some time soon. After all we all have to make sacrifices don’t we?

7 acres is not a particularly large field for livestock.

The quality of the thread discussions being raised on GN these days is on a par with the Daily Fail's news bulletins; both desperately seeking something shocking to report and both failing. This one is a good example.

Oooh, very suspicious buying a 7 acre field to graze an unspecified number of donkeys...

Are you working up an anti Starmer 'thing' now, Annie?

Depends on the livestock , 2 cows or a herd of cows .

How many donkeys ?

And what 'other failures' would they be, gillybob?

Really ?

Maizie , no.

I think the thread is pointless, my younger daughter and son in law are buying a field so she can keep goats.

Let's hope they have no aspirations to stand for any political office representing any party apart from the tories, Annie. Field ownership would clearly count against them... ?

I don't think this thread is any more pointless than many others on Gnet.

I doubt people votes depends on which candidate owns a field