But does he really 'understand'?

I agree with your final paragraph Maizie that's how I see it, of course lobbyists have their own vested influence and I think it's unsavoury how they are allowed to have such a level of influence. Allegedly lobbyists all over the party conferences. David Cameron said he was going to put a stop to lobbyists and then after his premiership bloody well comes back as one

America won't list Shein on the NY Stock Exchange due to increasing geo political tensions. In any case this is a company that has dubious ethics, having been accused of employee abuse, child labour, long hours and low wages. So hardly a good association for any political party to have.

I have no idea how the Stock Exchange works, which is why I asked.

Doodledog

I'm not sure I follow that, Terribull.

Where is the conflict of interest?

I suppose it depends on who makes the decision on allowing the listing.

Is the Stock Exchange a completely independent entity which makes its own decisions, subject of course, to any regulations or laws in place? Or does the government have any input into the decision?

If the government has input I would say that there is a conflict of interest.

Apart from that, I'm concerned by A lobbyist who has been working closely with RR . I'm not comfortable with any lobbyists 'working closely' with government ministers. Because, of course, lobbyists have their own agenda to prioritise.

I'm not sure I follow that, Terribull.

Where is the conflict of interest?

Saw this in yesterday's Times so I'll just park it here for anyone interested, to chew over. A lobbyist who has been working closely with RR is employed by a company that represents Shein, the Chinese fashion giant, Shein refused a listing on the NY Stock Exchange and is now seeking a listing here but concerns as to whether it can meet UK corporate rules and of course wider security fears about UK's reliance on China. In any event it prompts concerns RR in working with a public affairs consultancy who have close links with Shein could present a conflict of interest.

Ok😀

Mollygo

It’s wrong.
We don’t know, we may never know whether Starmer’s politics are influenced by the lavish freebies from his friends.

Better not to let the situation arise.

Doing something that he condemned others for however carefully his actions are disguised or excused is also wrong.

Doing something that he condemned others for however carefully his actions are disguised or excused is also wrong.

Unless you are Starmer or one of his advisers, Doodledog, I'm not really sure how you could extrapolate from that statement the inference that Mollygo was blaming you in any way.
🤔

I’m not suggesting you are doing anything Doodledog. Only you can know what you are doing or saying.

I’m saying
Accepting freebies, or gifts that could possibly influence the person who receives them is either wrong or it isn’t.

It’s wrong.

We don’t know, we may never know whether Starmer’s politics are influenced by the lavish freebies from his friends.

Better not to let the situation arise.

Things that are in the system aren’t always right. I don’t think “it’s in the system” is an excuse for letting something wrong continue.

If you are suggesting I am disguising or excusing his actions, I'm really not.

I am pointing out for the millionth time that accepting donations is within the system, whether we like it or not. Accepting donations and then giving the donors honours, or contracts is very very different, though, and that is the point.

I don't know what the answer is. It costs money to run an election action campaign. Do we just allow the rich to run everything, do we expect anyone who fancies a go at becoming an MP to get public funds, or do we let them raise money from their supporters? Or something else - if so what?

It’s wrong.
We don’t know, we may never know whether Starmer’s politics are influenced by the lavish freebies from his friends.

Better not to let the situation arise.

Doing something that he condemned others for however carefully his actions are disguised or excused is also wrong.

It's wrong if you know you will be influenced. It's not wrong if you know you won't. It's the influence that's wrong, not the act of giving, and the reason the Tories were accused of corruption is that they were influenced -costing billions of public money - to give contracts to their donors.

AFAIK, that has not happened with the LP, and I repeat - if it does I will reconsider my position. As it stands I don't think there is any reason to do so. The media attacks are baseless.

Accepting freebies, or gifts that could possibly influence the person who receives them is either wrong or it isn’t.

I think it’s wrong.

Saying it’s right for some and not for others is hypocritical.

Mollygo

He and his supporters (and some supporters of the opposition) criticised the Conservative - sometimes justifiably IMO.

Now he is being equally being justifiably criticised by those who don’t support him, (some in his own party), for doing/accepting what he or his supporters condemned, in opposition, but feel is OK now they’re in power.
How is that wrong?

It is wrong because it is a false equivalence.

Accepting the loan of a flat, or other gifts for no return is not remotely the same as accepting donations in return for a £200 million contract paid out of the public purse, or any of the examples in my link above.

As I said, if equivalent things were being done - ie if publicly funded contracts were being given to LP donors - it would be hypocrisy, but unless or until that happens there is none. It's not a great look at a time when we are being told we are in for 'difficult decisions', but there is no hypocrisy, just misjudgement.

He and his supporters (and some supporters of the opposition) criticised the Conservative - sometimes justifiably IMO.

Now he is being equally being justifiably criticised by those who don’t support him, (some in his own party), for doing/accepting what he or his supporters condemned, in opposition, but feel is OK now they’re in power.
How is that wrong?

There’s justified criticism and criticism for the sake of it and I think the latter applies to Starmer. Very little publicity about the good things the party are doing.

Why should he not be pulled apart

Because nobody should be. I disliked BJ, I believe he did untold harm. The pictures of him with Covid were sad. He is a human being after all.

Mentioned on the news today about the election date betting by people in the Conservative Party ( another thing amongst so many things that brought the party into disrepute; so many that people forget them). And mention of £75,000 given to Jenrick to support his leadership bid ( I need to check up on that, though).

WelwynWitch3

Doodledog Why should he not be pulled apart. In opposition he and Angela Rayner were quick to criticise and pull the Government up over the slightest thing. Now the boot is on the other foot and they are found to be hypocrites of the highest order, don’t do as I do, do as I say! Proven to have taken gifts worth thousands of pounds, and he is supposed to be for the working people! Even right minded Labour MP’s are angry and so they should be. Starmer hasn’t been in office for 100 days yet and his standing is already lower than Rishi Sunak. With winter ahead of us things are only going to get worse but no doubt with his heating allowance he will be able to turn the dial up!

I don't deny any of that, which I said in my post. What I find difficult is that the attackers never mention the good things he's done, and that the gifts have taken nothing from 'the working people'.

Starmer's standing is low, because every headline, every thread, every tweet is about gifts. Who has benefited from these gifts? Not Michelle Mone, Frank Hester and many others who have been rewarded from the public purse for their donations.

www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/27/public-contracts-companies-tory-donors

It would be hypocritical and indefensible if the LP had behaved as the Tories did, but they haven't, as far as I know. If and when they do I will stop feeling that there is an orchestrated campaign to smear KS and the LP so that their attempts to redistribute wealth are stopped in their tracks, and accept that my vote was a mistake.

Mollygo

Yes Doodledog you were right I was referring to you. I thought the person who did what I mentioned would be the one to reply.
And you did.
Thanks.

Eh? You meant me, so rather than say so, you made a vague accusation to see who replied? That makes not sense, really.

Why not just say what happened and when, so I could respond fairly? I had to assume you meant me because your reply was under my post - not because I have the first idea what you referring to. As I said, if you can point to where I 'reprimanded you' for referring to PMs past, I can respond, but otherwise it feels like an unfounded personal attack.

What are you thanking me for? I have not been caught out in some sort of trap, or proved your point, unless the point was to make me feel uncomfortable for disagreeing with you, which I don't.

I accept that there are different points of view about these things, and am comfortable with mine, just as I assume others are with their own. I thought the point of discussions was to put forward our views, not to trick people into putting a foot wrong in some elaborate dance.

And by people who would have no more voted for Benn at the time than flown to the moon. My dad often talks about what a great man Benn was, he would have had a fit if he had gained power at the time.

Allira

^To be fair to Corbyn ( who I never liked as leader but thought he was a good back bencher with a conscience, the sort of MPs parliament needs) he does lead a humble life^

I agree with all of that.

I don't know if wealth should preclude anyone from becoming a politician. It might mean they would be less likely to accept bribes.

Tony Benn was an example of a wealthy but good MP, but even he used loopholes to avoid inheritance tax.

And Benn ( who I admire greatly) is pretty much elevated to sainthood by the far left of the party.

Doodledog Why should he not be pulled apart. In opposition he and Angela Rayner were quick to criticise and pull the Government up over the slightest thing. Now the boot is on the other foot and they are found to be hypocrites of the highest order, don’t do as I do, do as I say! Proven to have taken gifts worth thousands of pounds, and he is supposed to be for the working people! Even right minded Labour MP’s are angry and so they should be. Starmer hasn’t been in office for 100 days yet and his standing is already lower than Rishi Sunak. With winter ahead of us things are only going to get worse but no doubt with his heating allowance he will be able to turn the dial up!

Yes Doodledog you were right I was referring to you. I thought the person who did what I mentioned would be the one to reply.
And you did.
Thanks.

Mollygo

No. I think it’s because you know that’s what you have done on previous occasions when I have mentioned former government actions.

I was sad that you said it was wrong if I did it.
I am happy to see that it’s now OK to do so.

So I was right that you were referring to me? I thought so from the way your post following, but as ever, the ‘some people’ tactic is designed to wrong-foot people. Thank you for clearing that up.

Can you point me to the ‘previous occasions’ please? You may be right - I don’t claim to be 100% consistent - but I don’t remember every post, and as I say, context is all, so it would be good to see what the accusation actually is.

Mollygo

^How have we ended up like this ? A huge gap between the haves and have nots? Any semblance of public services detroyed?^

Because successive governments, since even before Harold Wilson’s time have sought to improve things.
Their improvements have not succeeded.
The rich have got richer, the poor, poorer.
Now, to make matters worse, thanks to the internet, we quickly see how much milking of the system has gone on by MPs and their friends.
Add to that, people being told by others, that things they can’t afford are their own fault or as a result of their own poor organisation. . .

I wrote a long post to counter your suggestion that we have 'ended up like this' because of governments 'since before Harold Wilson's time have sought to improve things. However, I omitted to directly mention that.

So perhaps you'd like to respond to me rather than niggle at Dd