But does he really 'understand'?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
🤔

Ok😀

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.

I'm not sure I follow that, Terribull.

Where is the conflict of interest?

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

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.

vested influence interests.

The article also went on to state that UK companies have raised concerns about Shein's use of a tax loophole in which small packages sent from abroad directly to customers are not subject to import duties. Julian Dunkerton the boss of Superdry, said in effect Shein is being allowed to dodge tax.

Is Shein like Temu - a Chinese marketplace?

Forgive my ignorance, but do companies have to pay tax in all the countries they trade in, and can they be listed on more than one stock exchange? Does listing on a particular exchange confer rights/obligations or something else?

Is the suggestion that RR might intervene to allow Shein to list on the UK market, and that doing so would advantage a Chinese company?

Shein and Temu both Chinese e commerce companies.

I gather that they would have to pay tax here but as per Julian Dunkerton, The Superdry man's beef as outlined above, they are avoiding that due to the loophole. The Times also reported that before the election Labour stated they did not want to close that loophole in an apparent attempt to get them to list on the Stock Exchange according to the Financial Times.

The advantages in that is apparently there would be benefits to the UK particularly the Financial Services Industry and it would allegedly reinvigorate the Stock Market.

Permission to list is granted by the UK Listing Authority, which is part of the Financial Conduct Authority.

Companies wishing to list must conform to these rules:

(I don't think anyone is going to want to read this😂)

www.fca.org.uk/publication/ukla/listing-rules-august-2002.pdf

Forgive me if I don't then, Maisie😂

I'm still unsure as to what RR is being accused of, though. If Shein's listing would benefit the UK and reinvigorate the Stock Market is that not a good thing?

If Shein doesn't comply with the listings rules then it's not a good thing at all. We can't have dodgy companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.

I'm not altogether sure how we benefit from the SE, anyway. How much of the 'wealth' that is made there actually benefit the UK as a whole?

(This might be a whole new rabbit hole for me to go down via Mr google 😁)

MaizieD

If Shein doesn't comply with the listings rules then it's not a good thing at all. We can't have dodgy companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.

I'm not altogether sure how we benefit from the SE, anyway. How much of the 'wealth' that is made there actually benefit the UK as a whole?

(This might be a whole new rabbit hole for me to go down via Mr google 😁)

Noooo MaizieD. I need you to explain further…do I buy from Shein or not. I know they’re cheap (as are Temu…who R They?) but I’ve been resisting friends exhortations because it feels a bit dodgy…?

I’m trying to do the right thing (where I can) so are they dodgy?