Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

MaggsMcG

That information about not knowing about the black hole is lies. Firstly they had access to that information in April. Also since being elected they have promised billions of pounds to overseas aid and illegal immigrants accommodation. So they made the black hole bigger themselves.

Starmer challenged Sunak about withdrawing the WFA to fill the “black hole”
How could he do that if he didn’t know about it? Claiming it’s a different sized “black hole” doesn’t change the fact that he knew about it.

MaggsMcG

That information about not knowing about the black hole is lies. Firstly they had access to that information in April. Also since being elected they have promised billions of pounds to overseas aid and illegal immigrants accommodation. So they made the black hole bigger themselves.

On the contrary. Reeves has already been partially vindicated by the OBR, and more so by today's IFS report showing how the Tories 'misrepresented' the cost of their asylum policies and actions.

The report is here: ifs.org.uk/articles/home-office-budgeting-and-asylum-overspends

If you don't want to read that, here is a BBC article on it
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2npgpz048o

and the Guardian has it too
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/29/home-office-criticised-over-woefully-understated-tory-asylum-budgets

If you think both of those are biased and still don't want to read the report, the Yorkshire Post is clear

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/populist-approach-to-immigration-has-proven-costly-and-ineffective-4759851

Most of the other media have it too, but are firewalled.

Did you know?
Every year Glasgow City Council has to set aside £84million from its budget just to pay for the sheer incompetence of the previous British Labour administrations:
• £33million per yer in order to cover British Labour’s twelve-year equal pay scandal, and
• £51million every year due to British Labour’s disastrous PFI deals
Before a single penny is even allocated, £84,000,000 has to be cut from the city’s budget! Every single year, in order to fix the mess left by the likes of Frank McAveety, George Redmond and Gordon Matheson.
Mind that the next time you hit a pothole or get your bin collections cut 👍🏻
Presumably English councils are also struggling with the pfi fiasco!And you wonder why there was only ONE Labour MP from Scotland in WM ...sadly the gullible decided voting labour to get the tories out was the answer....look how thats turning out!!

That information about not knowing about the black hole is lies. Firstly they had access to that information in April. Also since being elected they have promised billions of pounds to overseas aid and illegal immigrants accommodation. So they made the black hole bigger themselves.

Cossy

Maggiemaybe

-Not one pledge is untarnished. Here are the 5 missions - again several looking rather weak.The Labour manifesto 2024 talks about lowering energy bills. He supported 50s women- now silence (even the Express has noticed) He seems to be actively supporting Ukraine war and is silent on the Gazan genocide-

“I must have missed the bit where he pledged to achieve all this within 8 weeks of being elected and before his first Budget.”

I too must have missed this! I’ve also seen no evidence that he is “supporting” the Ukraine war. I need to do a bit of digging re Gaza.

I didn't know Starmer had promised Zelensky £3bn a year for as long as it takes
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/10/uk-will-give-ukraine-3bn-a-year-for-as-long-as-it-takes-says-starmer

Doodledog

Starmer has responded to those accusations, though.
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/27/keir-starmer-hits-back-at-labour-cronyism-claims

To be honest, I believe that if something was done appropriately, you evidence that and continue with it, rather than promptly change it.

I also know that anyone who thinks a PM, of any persuasion, is all over every detail of operations is wrong.

Either way, it’s unfortunate at best, and I hope proves to be a blip in otherwise good governance.

paddyann54
It should be noted that Reeves was aiming cuts at the WFA as far back as 2014...its all available on Google .both in the house of commons and in print .Pity she didn't tell us that at the election!

Tut tut!
You’re not supposed to bring up things the LP said whilst in opposition, whether they’re things they said they would do, or things they said they wouldn’t do.

MayBee70

knspol

I am increasingly of the opinion that nothing you read in the newspapers or hear from a politician is the truth. Everything is edited for their own purposes and the public will never know the true picture about any of it.
Personally I think the LP will be disastrous for those of us who have worked hard all our lives, paid into the system and saved money. The LP is all about reducing people to the same level rather than helping the less fortunate to prosper.

Well, I can’t remember the last time I actually had any interest added to my saving and there wasn’t a Labour government during that time.

The interest rates for savings has been really high this past year so fail to understand what you mean.

I didn't perceive the now infamous trouser suit as inappropriate anymore than RS choice of attire, just clothes that many others would wear in a professional, working environment.

If you dress inappropriately in any situation others will stereotype you, women are the worst critics of other women dress style.
It shouldn’t happen but it DOES and it is not helpful in any business or social setting, you get judged, if you don’t care fine it’s your choice.

It should be noted that Reeves was aiming cuts at the WFA as far back as 2014...its all available on Google .both in the house of commons and in print .Pity she didn't tell us that at the election! There might have been far fewer voters in Scotland who were lending their vote to Labour to oust the Tories.Now we know its all smoke and mirrors with them too.

On a brighter note ,for me,Labour lost control of our council yesterday ....the council they were in a deal with the tories to keep SNP out.

It was wrong to label AR on two counts.
1. It was an unnecessarily vulgar comparison. suggestion
2. She’s a LP minister,
LP supporters can evidently be as vulgar as they like about Mr Sunak

The same

Doodledog

*Church attendance alive and well in my part of the country thank you. As for Starmer*
"We won't get rid of the fuel allowance," they did,guess on the advice of Reeves advisor who once called pensioners "codgers and they should be taxed more" oh yes Sir Edward Troupe.
Who said , banging his hand on the desk, "we won't stand for corruption or cronyism" we'll he's now our PM, well not mine, I didn't vote for him, so what happens Lord Alli, a big donor to LP, for the pre elction glow up, £16, 200 for "work clothes, £2,485 for glasses, they havent improved his appearance,or his reading skills, gets a pass to no 10, for what reason?? Dressing the PM.
Oh and Ian Corfield 20,00 donation , £5000 to Reeves, got given a job in international investment, now both gone after news broke,
Cronyism alive and well in the Labour Party

Your post is hard to follow Freya, but none of it, as far as I can tell is evidence that Starmer is a liar and a cheat. Or that 'him and his cronies' are sly.

I don't understand the bit about reading skills or how someone isn't your MP because you didn't vote for him. All parties have donors, and £2k is not a lot compared to money given to the Tories. Frank Hester, for instance, (famous for saying that Diane Abbot made him want to hate all black people, and that she should be shot) donated £15 million. £2000 is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

Oh well you read it,no cronyism yet it shows he's happy to do it. Favours for money, and glasses. Why mention the Tories not in power now are they. He's not my MP , no Im not in his constituency, pleased to say. Reading, well I should have said they haven't helped his monotone voice, or the fact he can't speak without looking at his notes every second.
He's a very divisive, authoratorian figure. He has lied and its on record that he said these things, then flip flopped as usual.

If it was wrong to label Angela Rayner as looking like a tart, yes i think that was wrong, I didn't contribute to that thread. Why therefore is it ok to liken Rishi Sunak's mode of dress as someone who looks as if they are a person who would visit a brothel a damning judgement I'd have thought on a man who is not known for sleazy inappropriate behaviour. Look around you, that's how many young men dress these days, particularly if they have RS slim physique and as ronib pointed out at least he paid for his own clothes I thought this was going to be a dawn of a new age as to not embracing cronyism..

At least Rishi Sunak paid for his own clothes and spectacles. So much for the grown ups in the room? Keep looking …

ronib

albertina you seem to have some very strange ideas about the type of man who frequents a brothel. How do you know it’s winkle pickers and drainpipes?

Or a total lack of knowledge regarding men’s fashion in the 2020’s…

albertina you seem to have some very strange ideas about the type of man who frequents a brothel. How do you know it’s winkle pickers and drainpipes?

I have faith in Keir Starmer. For the first time in a very long time we have a PM who looks and sounds the part. No more crazy haired buffoons or men who look like they belong in a 1950s brothel in winkle pickers and drainpipe trousers.

It's not going to be easy as he has been left with a mess to sort out, but I believe that given time and support from us, he and his government will do it.

Siope

No, I think this has been a rather back-door way of giving donors, who aren’t necessarily expert at anything, civil service jobs, without informing the Civil Service of their donations history, and I do disapprove of that.

www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/25/labour-donor-quits-treasury-role-amid-cronyism-claims

A completely back door way🤬
If Starmer really wants to avoid cronyism he wouldn’t have done this, and so soon after moving into number ten as well.
It doesn’t matter what he says now about it. They have civil service jobs and they shouldn’t have, simple as that.It’s all so very disappointing to me.

I’m still pleased Starmer is PM. I don’t envy him the job though

Starmer has responded to those accusations, though.
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/27/keir-starmer-hits-back-at-labour-cronyism-claims

No, I think this has been a rather back-door way of giving donors, who aren’t necessarily expert at anything, civil service jobs, without informing the Civil Service of their donations history, and I do disapprove of that.

www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/25/labour-donor-quits-treasury-role-amid-cronyism-claims

Ah, I see. Thanks, Siope. Is this the secondment idea, where advisors work a day or two a week with the government to ensure that policies are based on expertise and not politics?

That seems a good idea to me. I don't know about other areas, but having Education secretaries who have never worked in a school or university was very destructive, and there is no reason to assume that the same won't be true in other sectors. Bringing in advisors will help, rather than hinder. Obviously they will have to have views broadly in line with those of the government, or there will be no point, but as I understand it there is no secret about their influence - that is their role. Nothing 'sly' about it.

Doodledog, I think Freya is trying to point out is that Labour seem to be placing several of their large donors in civil service (as opposed to political adviser) roles, which undermines the neutrality of the civil service, and is, indeed, the kind of cronyism that Starmer has condemned in the past.

One or two donors (different ones, including one whose donations were used to buy campaign trail clothes for Starmer) were given keys/desks in 10 Downing Street, despite having no official roles there, which lends itself - accurately or not - to allegations of undue influence and lobbying.

No idea about the rest of her diatribe.

Cossy