The first 100 days.

These are the first steps in cleaning up parliament. Starmer has already stated that he sees being a constituent MP is all about service and a privilege, and not about lining your pockets
cellent idea.
The last part of that statement is something which has worried voters about MPs in more than the last government. Especially since it has become easier for the media to publicise the lining your pocket activities.

I hope he will also look into the practice of employing family members, able to claim not just wages, but also expenses, which taxpayers pay for.

In 2008, the % Labour MPs employing one or more family members was greater than the % of Conservatives.

During the last government the balance between the parties employing one or more family members swung the other way.

Former senior Lib Dem politician Tom Brake said he had employed relatives when he was an MP but it was “right and proper” that eventually no MP would be doing so.

Now as director of Unlock Democracy think tank, he said: “Eventually no MP will be employing a family member.”

“That is right and proper and avoids any actual or perceived nepotism.”

“For MPs who still employ one family member, total transparency over that family member’s role and salary is essential.”

“This should guarantee that their salary matches their workload and level of responsibility, and is not being used to supplement the MP’s income at the taxpayer’s expense”

With such a large majority I did expect Starmer to have problems controlling left wing rebels, the severity of the penalty is a sign that it’s not going to be tolerated.

The leader of any party is only there if the majority support his policies, there is plenty of scope for a large scale rebellion forcing him to change.

If there is a large scale rebellion it won’t be from the left though David49, there are nowhere near enough of them to do that, and the ones suspended are the usual suspects, not a new cohort of left wing supporters. I can’t see a rebellion happening any time soon, the first test will be the annual conference.

In the first 100 days, we have confirmation of Labour’s attitude to female rights, condoning cheating if it benefits males rather than females.

Lisa Nandy, Labour’s culture secretary says,
Trans athletes should be allowed to take part in women's sports
Lisa Nandy said it should be up to individual sports to decide whether to let biological males compete against women in their respective fields.

I know it was expected, but what a cop-out from Labour!
I wonder if Nandy thinks we should go back to the time when only males were allowed to be MPs.

Mollygo yep, what are women to do now.

I think they hope we will go back into the kitchen and bedroom and accept men as all important in everything and run rough shod over us 🤬🤬🤬

I sincerely don't understand the gender /trans stuff..

I don't think the LP want women to go back to the kitchen. Nobody is going back anywhere.

ronib

GB news isn’t necessarily a corrupt influence but it definitely depends on well known politicians who do try to influence the public. A bit of a thin line?

Not really as politicians of all stripes come on regularly. I like hearing both sides of an argument. I’m even becoming a fan of Starmer - something I’d never thought I’d hear myself say.

And Farage is getting too big for his boots. Another thing I’m surprised I’m thinking!

Cadeby

I sincerely don't understand the gender /trans stuff..

I don't think the LP want women to go back to the kitchen. Nobody is going back anywhere.

Cadeby
Are you sincerely saying you don’t understand why males competing in female competitions is unfair?

In a minute, we could be flooded with posts from people who know someone who is transgender and doesn’t cheat or lie either way into female sports or safe places. Those transgender people are not the problem.
No one has claimed that the Labour Party said women should go back to the kitchen.
They have said that males should be allowed to compete in female competitions.

Cadeby

I sincerely don't understand the gender /trans stuff..

I don't think the LP want women to go back to the kitchen. Nobody is going back anywhere.

If men who self identify as women are continually allowed to enter female sports events and win with their make advantage what do you think will happen to all our young girls and women who have dreams of being a successful athlete?

I can tell you for free, they will give up on their dreams.

When men win industry awards in the female category?

When men think it’s ok to infiltrate women only spaces?

GrannyGravy13

Cadeby

I sincerely don't understand the gender /trans stuff..

I don't think the LP want women to go back to the kitchen. Nobody is going back anywhere.

If men who self identify as women are continually allowed to enter female sports events and win with their make advantage what do you think will happen to all our young girls and women who have dreams of being a successful athlete?

I can tell you for free, they will give up on their dreams.

When men win industry awards in the female category?

When men think it’s ok to infiltrate women only spaces?

I will allocate some time to understand this fully.

There's another thread set up to discuss this specifically that could give you more not he debate
www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1338654-Transwomen-take-all-three-medals-in-womens-cycling-championship

correction, "On the debate"

Nandy might as well add this to Labour’s posters.
It is what’s happening, and Labour aren’t going to stop it because protecting females from discrimination by makes isn’t high enough up on their agenda.

Look. Labour are complying with international law and recognising what we’ve been banging on about since the Tories broke with international law. Asylum seekers are illegal.

No asylum seekers are not illegal? It’s perfectly legal to seek asylum under certain circumstances.

That’s what I meant! 😀 asylum seekers are legal - doh!!,

WWM, don't you mean "Asylum seekers are legal?.

The usual suspects are making a right to do about it and repeating turn the boats back and leave the ECHR.

The last government made all migrants "illegal" with the Rwanda Bill unless they have arrived by approved routes (which are very very few).

So basically there was no way for most people to claim asylum to enter "legally" although it is as you say legal to claim asylum and has been enshrined in law for over 70 years.

Just found out that "irregular" was the term used by the conservatives themselves as part of government reports until they changed it in the Rwanda Act.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023

Labour just using original term!

Energy

GB Energy it to team up with the King’s Crown Estate - headquartered in Scotland.

It is the first major plan to be announced by Great British Energy, the government's new company aimed at increasing renewable energy which will receive £8.3bn in state funding over the next five years.

The deal with the Crown Estate means that the monarchy's land and property business will lease the land on which windfarms can be developed and built.

The company will take stakes in energy projects to help speed them up, which includes giving a boost to technologies including carbon capture and storage, which has yet to be deployed at scale, along with hydrogen, wave and tidal energy.

Eventually, GB Energy may take a controlling interest in some renewables generation projects.

This is the third decision in recent days that troubles me. Obviously, I know it’s not possible to agree with every policy, and I still hope Labour will prove to be a good choice on balance, but I’m feeling all the concerns I had before the election are being justified.

Siope

This is the third decision in recent days that troubles me. Obviously, I know it’s not possible to agree with every policy, and I still hope Labour will prove to be a good choice on balance, but I’m feeling all the concerns I had before the election are being justified.

So can you explain further?

With regard to the suspension of those MPs, I obviously misunderstood when I thought MPs were supposed to support/present the position of those who voted for them.
Evidently you’re not allowed to vote against Starmer in support of your constituents.

Mollygo

With regard to the suspension of those MPs, I obviously misunderstood when I thought MPs were supposed to support/present the position of those who voted for them.
Evidently you’re not allowed to vote against Starmer in support of your constituents.

It is called party discipline.

The point being that if you represent your constituency as a labour/Tory MP, you have a duty to support both which sometimes is a real dichotomy.

Look at how difficult those MPs representing a large Muslim constituency have found it, in some cases losing their seats, so the voter votes both for their MP and the party.

In my case I vote for the party, and expect my mp to support the party, fighting any battles within the party and not getting himself kicked out where he would be worse than useless.

I would like to vote for a party that can cope with people disagreeing on some issues, it looks weak to me, the left have zero power in the labour party currently, it was an over reaction.