Lord Waheed Alli, has he bought the government?

Allira

Casdon

I don’t see that anybody has denied what they have said before though Allira? We all take standpoints depending on our political allegiance, naturally.
The point I was making though was that there was a huge public scandal in 1997 regarding Bernie Ecclestone funding Labour’s election campaign, and it was thought then that it would see off Tony Blair. It didn’t. Here we are, almost 30 years later, numerous scandals later, and the ‘dubious’ donations are still coming. I don’t think this will be the reason for Starmer’s demise either - which will obviously come, as it does for them all.
I know I’m repeating myself, but it’s the system that has to change to avoid this happening again and again. I don’t think it will.

Of course they did!!

Unfortunately I can’t read your first link as it has apparently ‘moooved’ which is frustrating. I can’t see anything untoward in the second one, which I could open. Therefore I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at - I’m certainly happy to hold my hands up in terms of being critical of the scandals of the last government, and I expect people to be so of this one - but I was trying to make a different point here.

Mollygo

MaizieD
I'm afraid that I didn't notice 'public opinion' being quite so vociferous or sustained when Johnson was accepting gifts and holidays and attending parties in Italian properties belonging to the son of a KGB officer...

This is a deliberate campaign against Starmer and the government...

Not true.

What bit isn't true?

It is true, we now have Starmer’s sexuality , his wife’s religious faith, his children’s Christian names being questioned

Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Allira

Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Or in other words, this all makes little difference to the way any government operates or the decisions it makes. It’s not a central issue, and it never was, the real scandals are elsewhere in their cupboards.

This is a deliberate campaign against Starmer and the government...

Not true.

What bit isn't true?

This is a deliberate campaign against Starmer and the government...

I think a campaign against the government needs to start with looking at Rachael Reeves and her proposal to spend £22 billion on carbon capture. It makes Starmer’s £6k to £100k freebies look insignificant.

ronib

I think a campaign against the government needs to start with looking at Rachael Reeves and her proposal to spend £22 billion on carbon capture. It makes Starmer’s £6k to £100k freebies look insignificant.

Views about Net Zero tend to very polarised with an amount of scaremongering and downright lies thrown into the arguments. Rather than a "campaign against Labour", I'd like to see rational discussion about the issue taking all views into account. IMO it's too important to relegate it to a party political issue.

It is true, we now have Starmer’s sexuality , his wife’s religious faith, his children’s Christian names being questioned.

Questions about the Starmer family are due to Keir Starmer; his relationship and the amount of money involved with Waheed Alli have provoked some most unpleasant rumours which I would not repeat. Starmer made a throw-away remark about how he spent Friday nights some time ago, then explained it was Jewish tradition; most people neither knew or cared his wife was of Jewish descent. I cannot see there is a problem with revealing the names of his children; the names of the Blair, Johnson, Clegg, Truss and Sunak children were all known and probably their ages but nothing else.
And as for:
I'm afraid that I didn't notice 'public opinion' being quite so vociferous or sustained when Johnson was accepting gifts and holidays and attending parties in Italian properties belonging to the son of a KGB officer...
Where have you been for the past five years?

I cannot agree with all Starmers politics, I do however agree with his decision to keep all information relating to his children private

It is a greater security risk sadly that his children are Jewish.

I have been on Gnet, for a start. I checked back on postings in 2020/21. They're not obsessing over every penny Johnson scrounged from his wealthy friends.

The personal donations Starmer has had pale into insignificance when compared with what Johnson scrounged.

I don't recall twitter being aflame with vicious rumours about him; plenty of recitation of verifiable discreditable facts about him because I follow centre/left type people, but nothing like what is happening now.

I stand by my claim that this is an orchestrated campaign. It has gone on for too long and is too high profile in the media. Normally such a media fuss would have been over in a week or two, if not a few days.

The clip I've posted is from Private Eye. Not a source that is often wrong, they can't afford the law suits...

Casdon

Allira

Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Or in other words, this all makes little difference to the way any government operates or the decisions it makes. It’s not a central issue, and it never was, the real scandals are elsewhere in their cupboards.

I do agree with you, Casdon. This demonisation is going to make little difference to actual government.

I'm a bit baffled about the names of his children. Personally I don't give a hoot, but if they were born in England or Wales a copy of the birth certificates is available too anyone who applies.

Yes so why the big mystery played out on SM

Rekarie

I'm a bit baffled about the names of his children. Personally I don't give a hoot, but if they were born in England or Wales a copy of the birth certificates is available too anyone who applies.

Presumably if that is part of a super injunction it is exempt from the usual rules? Regardless, I don’t care about what any politician’s children are called, and it really doesn't fall into any category of ‘need to know’ for the public.

Ah yes, Casdon, that's a possibility.

MaizieD Fri 04-Oct-24 09:06:54

Thank you for finding that, MaizueD

Yes, there was censure which some are trying to deny. "Sleaze" was the word associated with the Tory Government.
Yes, the amount is more than Starmer has accepted so far but it's early days yet - however, it might stop now he has been widely censured.

The amount of the financial gifts is not the point. It is the hypocrisy which is the point.

I, for one, expected better of the seemingly sensible, staid, somewhat serious Starmer.

It's disappointing especially when one of the first actions of his Government was to take away the WFA from pensioners.
They need new advisers because the ones they have don't have a clue about PR.

You only have to type in sleaze and different governments or PMs to find that this has been going on for a long time.
The difference is how easy it is to find it now, compared to before the surge of internet usage.

Good post Allira and exactly my opinion.
I also think that all politicians, of any colour, should not be allowed to take any free gifts. This goes much further back than Starmer or Johnson. There is absolutely no way that these gifts are given without expectation of some return.

Your astonishment at what you see as a concentrated campaign against Labour has been generated by disgust when discovering that while Labour was campaigning relentlessly against Tory sleaze, some of its more prominent members were already accepting generous gifts for their personal use.

You really cannot take the moral high ground whilst doing exactly the same as your criticise your opponent for. Many people expected better of Starmer. I thought he was dull, phlegmatic, but honest.
I do not trust him at all now.

MaizieD, surely the whole point is that the Conservatives were a bunch of freebie taking sleaze buckets? They only did what Labour accused them of, endlessly.

So whataboutery doesn't really work.

I love Private Eye. No party is safe.

eazybee that’s how I feel, despite willing to give them a chance. Still hoping they will succeed, but having serious doubts.

It’s just different snouts in a different trough.

I had a Quick Look £8 million a day on migrant hotels (Home Office figures) £22 billion for carbon capture, £11 billion for international climate change aid. So they are adding to the Black Hole, (although despite a F of I request being denied they insist is there) but cannot afford to keep pensioners warm!

Business Secretary offering businesses exclusive breakfast with his department at £30,000 a pop, or £15,000 for multiple businesses.

Where are the PR and Spin Doctors, who is advising them that the optics look good?

Yes, I saw Private Eye this morning!
This huge black hole that they won't allow to be investigated, and all the borrowing; who will be paying it back.
Business Secretary offering businesses exclusive breakfast with his department at £30,000 a pop,
This is allowed?

eazybee

Yes, I saw Private Eye this morning!
This huge black hole that they won't allow to be investigated, and all the borrowing; who will be paying it back.
Business Secretary offering businesses exclusive breakfast with his department at £30,000 a pop,
This is allowed?

The breakfasts were being discussed this morning on the early news, and again by Alistair Campbell & Rory Stewart on ITV (This Morning) when I got home from the gym.

I, for one, expected better of the seemingly sensible, staid, somewhat serious Starmer.

So did I, Alliraa, but it was more in the policy and actions line that I expected better. The WFA fiasco was so ill judged and unnecessary.

OTOH, I have always been apprehensive about their economic policy because Reeves doesn't have a clue. That was obvious way before the GE.

The tories, BTW, have always had events at which they charged people enormous amounts for direct access to ministers. I thought it corrupt. I am deeply disappointed that Labour is following suit.