Sick of Starmer relentlessly using the words"difficult " & "painful"

Cuts all ways:

news.sky.com/story/dishonesty-epidemic-infecting-tories-conference-sparks-fresh-calls-for-rules-to-stop-mps-lying-12976524

I think its OK to change your policy as needs demand: history is full of changed policies that at the first time of speaking seemed completely realistic.

I say, go by the policy, and the times we live in

I'm clear that whilst GFA levels have been targeted badly, and that needs altering as a matter of priority, it is not essential for all to receive it.

With hindsight most politicians may wish they had or had not promised such and such, examples abound, like Johnson promising the 2019 electorate most clearly that he would sort out Care in the Community.

I've just googled a page of "promises politicians dropped" and unsurprisingly - there are lists from both the major parties.

Wyllow3

Cuts all ways:

news.sky.com/story/dishonesty-epidemic-infecting-tories-conference-sparks-fresh-calls-for-rules-to-stop-mps-lying-12976524

I think its OK to change your policy as needs demand: history is full of changed policies that at the first time of speaking seemed completely realistic.

I say, go by the policy, and the times we live in

I'm clear that whilst GFA levels have been targeted badly, and that needs altering as a matter of priority, it is not essential for all to receive it.

With hindsight most politicians may wish they had or had not promised such and such, examples abound, like Johnson promising the 2019 electorate most clearly that he would sort out Care in the Community.

I've just googled a page of "promises politicians dropped" and unsurprisingly - there are lists from both the major parties.

With hindsight most politicians may wish they had or had not promised such and such, examples abound, like Johnson promising the 2019 electorate most clearly that he would sort out Care in the Community.

Oh yes. Care in the Community.

One of the major factors, among others, why those admitted to A&E who need a bed find themselves waiting for hours and hours on trollies in corridors, or languishing on plastic chairs in overfilled waiting areas - or cupboards.

I once watched an elderly lady desperately in need of convalescence prior to going home after major surgery to live alone crying in despair because there was nothing on offer - nowhere to send her, all available beds in suitable homes were occupied. As the nurses told her - they were in very short supply.

She was pitchforked out in the end with the promise of carers coming in 4 times a day to her home. The arrangement took ages because - there were not enough carers in the locality. She was frail and nervous and really should not have been sent home alone - but the ward needed the bed. There was nothing they could do but encourage her, but it was obvious to anyone that she needed a period of rehabilitation.

Starmer has a 10 year plan to improve access to out-of-hospital care.

I hope he's more successful than get-Brexit-done Boris.

Dickens but the Conservatives also kicked social care into the long grass. At what point does the 10 year plan start? Is it in year 8? Starmer needs to realise that he has a 5 year window. Any credible leader would plan for that. What happens to the bed blocking in the NHS then over the next 10 years? There needs to be a sense of urgency which just isn’t happening under any government. Crazy times.

It’s wrong that Starmer has accepted donations and gifts after criticising Tories for doing the same.... it is custom and practice. It’s not something I agree with in principle, but it is what it is.

I do not understand your beliefs about right and wrong. You acknowledge it is wrong that Starmer accepted donations but then say 'That’s not to say he is wrong for accepting them, because it is the norm in Westminster; it is custom and practice.'
So: it ^ is^wrong for him to accept donations but it is not wrong because everybody else does it.
Really?
An extraordinary moral code.

eazybee if you have a look at the link Casdon posted at 19.08 yesterday, it quickly becomes clear that vast amounts of money are flowing through to political parties. I am wondering where all this money ends up? Is it pocketed by the individual mp or used to run salaries for staff? For example, a green lobby gave Rachel Reeves £99,000 - how was this money spent?

Ps of course Starmer knows what is going on regarding donations to ALL political parties - he can’t not know. So yes it does seem to be accepted practice at Westminster. I don’t know when it first started.

If I don't accept a gift of hospitality, I can't go to a game. You could say: 'Well, bad luck.' That's why gifts have to be registered. But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far," he said.

Here's a novel idea, he could try paying for the hospitality. There are many, many Arsenal supporters who never manage to purchase tickets for a game, what about them Keir, is that fair? Of all the things he could whinge about!

Making 'difficult and painful decisions' shouldn't be restricted to those that only affect other people.

To be generous spirted, Casdon, I think the point you are making is that all MPs are allowed to accept donations and declare them, which is common practice. They are not intended for personal use which is where Starmer has gone wrong; clothes, glasses, accommodation, tickets etc and particularly clothes for his wife, plus having accrued more money than any previous Leader of the Opposition.

Apparently Sunak, not a favourite of mine, travels down to Southampton to see them play, and buys his own ticket in the Stands.

One of my sons wondered how Starmer had the time to get to a football match….he thought there might be more important tasks to do. Doubtless Sue Grey is working at the weekend?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Only 23% of the country voted for Keir Starmer. I didn’t but I hope he and his Cabinet do well because it’s in all our best interests if they do.

They e been in Opposition for 14 long years now. I hope they have formed some solid solutions to problems in that time. I am just hoping they’ve been keeping their ideas under wraps, waiting for Their Moment. The big reveal. They were vociferous in Opposition and voted against many (to me) sound proposals. Let’s hope the Autumn Budget inspires our collective confidence.

I doubt it

I don't accept bribes, my friends and family don't accept bribes, most of Parliament don't accept bribes

Eazybee why do you use the word ‘bribes’? To suggest that bribery is involved is a serious allegation. Do you have evidence to support this?

I can only speak for our SME, we give out gifts at Christmas to our valued customers, and offer freebies with some products during the year.

Why?

To let out customers know they are valued, along with keeping our name visible (diaries, post-it’s and large scale desk jotters ) so that when they need something they come straight to us!

I can only assume it’s the same with political donors, and freebie providers…

The ex and I once got a calendar from a takeaway.
That's when we knew we had to cut down.

MissAdventure

The ex and I once got a calendar from a takeaway.
That's when we knew we had to cut down.

🤣🤣🤣

Mollygo

^But the amount of criticism in the press and social media seems to exceed how much there is when there’s a Conservative government^

Really? The plethora of complaints about the Conservative government and its various leaders far exceeds anything that’s been said about Starmer &Co so far.

Well there is time, he’s only been in charge a few months

ronib

Dickens but the Conservatives also kicked social care into the long grass. At what point does the 10 year plan start? Is it in year 8? Starmer needs to realise that he has a 5 year window. Any credible leader would plan for that. What happens to the bed blocking in the NHS then over the next 10 years? There needs to be a sense of urgency which just isn’t happening under any government. Crazy times.

To improve social care much more money is needed, the only place that is going to come from is out of the pockets of those that can afford it. Either in the form of money save from other services or taxes paid.
Yet as soon as Reeves announced that WFA was going to be restricted, everyone screams “not me”. It’s a very small part of what is going to be needed to improve what has been neglected for decades.

A capitalist like myself finds it very uncomfortable supporting a Labour PM, but he is taking a realistic view of the nations finances. If he is to improve services he has to take money from those that have it. There isnt a problem with borrowing for growth but he should not for social spending.

GrannyGravy13

I can only speak for our SME, we give out gifts at Christmas to our valued customers, and offer freebies with some products during the year.

Why?

To let out customers know they are valued, along with keeping our name visible (diaries, post-it’s and large scale desk jotters ) so that when they need something they come straight to us!

I can only assume it’s the same with political donors, and freebie providers…

That’s the difficulty. You do that because you hope for something in return, i.e. their custom.
Are political freebies based on that premise?
Why do you suppose a millionaire was given thousands of pounds of clothes for himself and his wife?
To make him use that clothing manufacturer, or because the donor wanted a free pass to number 10?

Ronib, I cannot find a record anywhere of "For example, a green lobby gave Rachel Reeves £99,000".

Wyllow3 well it’s definitely mentioned on the link Casdon so helpfully provided. Maybe 2019 I think?

Wyllow3

Ronib, I cannot find a record anywhere of "For example, a green lobby gave Rachel Reeves £99,000".

It is on the Government website of all her received donations and income.

I didn’t make it up -

That exactly what the Supermarket does, gives special offers and loss leaders to keep customers coming back, it’s everywhere, it’s normal practice your Tesco club card is a bribe.

Politicians should declare what they receive, if the gift has a tangible value over a certain amount IMO it should be accounted for and be accrued to the nation not personal benefit
.

There are some people online suggesting that donations should be limited to £10k annually. That’s a good anti sleaze proposal in my book. It won’t happen though will it?

To some extent we seem to be muddling up political donations and personal gifts.

I think you are right to question "what is the morality" easybee as you did above re personal gifts. As regards personal gifts (clothes, tickets) it has been the custom and practice to accept them and Starmer continued:

but it is clear that the public no longer accept it (I dont) - at least on the scale we have previously seen.

So do we ban it altogether or limit it?

You can check any MP by typing in the name and "Registered Interests". If the gift is for, example, a worker for a limited time in an office for the election, it seems to be declared as such, but private donations just appear as a list and we don't know what they are spent on.

ronib

I didn’t make it up -

I didn't think you did!

Just couldn't find it, and it seemed such a specific large amount I wanted to find out what it was for I've googled further and according to the Telegraph is appears to be money for

A government-backed organisation that raises cash for net zero projects