Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

I don’t understand either.
I don’t think it makes him weak, but I understand his reluctance to have a reminder of someone who used his current things will get worse before they get better mantra, facing him every day.

How does not wanting a picture of someone on your wall make someone weak? I may be being dim, but I don't understand.

Not me MissA - all this faux outrage, accusations it makes Starmer look weak. No it doesn’t. She was and remains a divisive figure. She began the damaging move to the cult if the individual

On the contrary, I think it shows that he is strong.
Who would want to look at Margaret Thatchers face in their office?

GrannyGravy13

Ironically I have just read that Margaret Thatcher’s portrait was commissioned by Gordon Brown.

It really is extremely petty to remove the portrait of the first female PM of the UK and one of the longest serving.

I know, shows what a weak man he is, poor man,made him feel funny and can't even face the 1st woman PM. Labour haven't even had o.
Saw video of Maggie earlier, crowds waving and cheering, they won't be doing this for Starmer, his ratings have fallen, over 52% say he's doing a rottenjob. I agree.

More than half of Britons disapprove of Labour government, poll finds
New surveys show surge in negative view of new administration and many more expecting rise in their taxes

“It really is extremely petty to remove the portrait of the first female PM of the UK and one of the longest serving.”

Being female did not make her a good PM, she did some good but at the end she was out of control and her own party kicked her out.
Congratulations Maggie you made an excellent job of destroying UK industry and council housing to boot.

GrannyGravy13

Ironically I have just read that Margaret Thatcher’s portrait was commissioned by Gordon Brown.

It really is extremely petty to remove the portrait of the first female PM of the UK and one of the longest serving.

I wonder if Boris's expensive wallpaper is still up.

Each government says the previous Government left the country in a mess.
The reason each new government gets voted in is because the previous government has left the country in mess.
I don’t blame Starmer for wanting Mrs Thatcher‘s portrait taking down.

He won’t want reminding that he is using some of her phrases to justify what he is doing now.

It doesn't affect anyone else, though.

Ironically I have just read that Margaret Thatcher’s portrait was commissioned by Gordon Brown.

It really is extremely petty to remove the portrait of the first female PM of the UK and one of the longest serving.

People who get presents are not necessarily unable to pay their own way. It's hardly 'remarkable' that people who have got to the top in their profession are still given gifts, is it?

Who knows why BJ cultivated that image. I'm not sure what was being enhanced, but each to her own. I'm sure we all have different ideas about what constitutes 'genuinely broke', too .

This is an entirely pointless deviation from the thread, though. As the OP says, the Tories left the country in a mess, so it will take longer than expected for the government to get it back on track. That is the situation we are in, and it would have been wrong for KS to pretend otherwise and build up our hopes falsely.

Personally, I would have tried to inject a bit of hope into the speech, but people have different styles. I would much rather be told the truth than promises of sunlit uplands or whatever it was, and I think most sensible people would prefer that, too.

Is there no stopping this evil man?
Removing Thatcher?!?!

nanaK54

Goodness me! Now he has had the portrait of Margaret Thatcher removed from his office what a complete bounder he is

I have heard he thought it was a mirror

If it was a donation, it takes nothing away from anyone else, though, surely?

We are not talking about a clothing allowance for Starmer. Sunak clearly could pay his own way. Starmer received a donation of £20k from Lord Ali to cover spectacles and clothing. For someone with assets considerably more than the average, I find this remarkable.

Boris Johnson cultivated the disheveled look to enhance his image I guess. Each to their own. Or perhaps Johnson was genuinely broke after his divorce and loss of income as prime minister?

My grandson-in-law gets uniform clothing given, but he would not buy clothes like his work clothes.
Does anyone think claiming money for suits, shirts etc that are part of your everyday attire, especially when you can well afford it, whilst taking money from those who would benefit from that is a sign of somebody who cares for the poor?

I wouldn't want to live with someone else's choice, but I would expect to pay for decorating my own space myself.

And the 'whataboutery' was simply a response to the nonsense about clothing, which was whataboutery in itself. As I say, many people get clothing allowances - it's not 'untrustworthy' to claim it, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is. I don't know a single person who gets to buy wallpaper at £1800 a roll - whether they pay for it themselves or not!

Same old same old whataboutery.
I totally agree about the wallpaper and interior decorator, though I’ve yet to learn how much either Sunak or Starmer spent on redecorating, or if they lived with BJ’s choice in the interest of saving money from the taxpayer. 🤣🤣🤣

The fact that a millionaire thinks it’s OK to claim payment for his clothing, whilst taking money from those who might really benefit from free clothes is possibly one of the ways he became a millionaire.

ronib

MissAdventure I never did trust a man who couldn’t pay for his own clothes ….

Many people get clothing allowances, either as part of their salary or as tax relief.

Personally, I think that if someone can't afford their choice of wallpaper they might think about spending a bank holiday in B&Q instead of hiring an expensive interior designer. A scruffy-looking PM is bad for the image of the UK, and arguably so would tatty meeting rooms in Downing Street, but private apartments should be decorated at the expense of the people living there. At the very least, if donated money is used to pay for wallpaper it should be declared.

Goodness me! Now he has had the portrait of Margaret Thatcher removed from his office what a complete bounder he is

ronib

*Mollygo*. What are the other revenue streams do you know? I guess these streams will be protected under the new regime so obviously we need to look into this.
Not very good at making ends meet though is Starmer?

No he isn't, they are the wealthy. Yet they nowhere are contributing to the massive pay rises they have handed out to their paymasters. They take it from pensioners, yet keep their 2,000 winter fuel allowance. How is this right, or fair. Because I don't think it is at all

Mollygo. What are the other revenue streams do you know? I guess these streams will be protected under the new regime so obviously we need to look into this.
Not very good at making ends meet though is Starmer?

Sorry, error in accounting
Sir Keir has a net worth of around £7.7 million, however it could rise to between £10m and £15m when “taking his other revenue streams into account and the land he has held since 1996.”
Will he consider that that makes him very wealthy?

Labour are likely to increase taxes on the very wealthy, the multimillionaires that the Tories have been supporting for years. If they succeed the plans we have seen so far should produce a fairer society with better services.
That’s a good idea.
Very wealthy is a flexible definition.
Will Starmer see his £7K - 10K net worth as making him very wealthy and so liable for the extra taxes
My concern is that their idea of very wealthy who know how to protect their assets, will produce insufficient revenue to fill the black hole they didn’t know about.

Guess who will be next in line of fire.

ronib

*J52*. No.

Thank you for clarifying that.😊