The Labour Government

[metalblue]

Yep something like 90% legal fees mostly in small donations from your average Joe. Not millionaires looking for something in return.

Cheers for clarity.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How much did Boris receive for the flat renovation?

The figure of £60,000 seems low when the cost of renovation was quoted at 200K.

Doesn't the frivolous spending on a temporary residence alarm you at all?

There was plenty more to go in the pot.

View attachment 132681

Distant cousin of Boris Johnson acted as credit guarantor while in No 10

Sam Blyth was guarantor of credit facility of up to £800,000 that helped fund Johnson’s lifestyle, it has emerged

www.google.com

Is he a Labour MP? I thought this was the Labour Government thread.

Anyway, I've no idea on the specifics of the above, but on face value it looks iffy. But that is kind of the point completely missed by Rachel Thieves in her TV interview this morning. Saying things are declared does NOT mean they are automatically OK.

Gifts should be declared so that the public and relevant overseers can inspect them to determine IF they are OK, and in many cases, they clearly are not.

The Premier League paying Starmer £4,000 for Taylor Swift tickets, is clearly NOT OK, whether declared on not.

Football Governance Bill: Labour reintroduces bill for independent regulator

New legislation will grant powers to a body to oversee clubs in England's top five tiers.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Is he a Labour MP? I thought this was the Labour Government thread.

Anyway, I've no idea on the specifics of the above, but on face value it looks iffy. But that is kind of the point completely missed by Rachel Thieves in her TV interview this morning. Saying things are declared does NOT mean they are automatically OK.

Gifts should be declared so that the public and relevant overseers can inspect them to determine IF they are OK, and in many cases, they clearly are not.

It was clear corruption. Boris gave Brownlow the impression he would approve the plans for the great exhibition and then let him setup a trust to fund his Crinkly Bottom inspired renovation.

Pay attention to the date. At that point he had only been elected by Tory MPs and members.

 

[Lowtower]

Is it too much to ask for Starmer and his missus to buy their own clothes and all that other shit Keith is getting for free?

And why are people trying to explain it away as okay? They are meant to represent the working class.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It was clear corruption. Boris gave Brownlow the impression he would approve the plans for the great exhibition and then let him setup a trust to fund his Crinkly Bottom inspired renovation.

Pay attention to the date. At that point he had only been elected by Tory MPs and members.

Fine, if you say so - lIke I said, I don't know the details.

Does not in any way justify further corruption by any party's MPs does it.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Fine, if you say so - lIke I said, I don't know the details.

Does not in any way justify further corruption by any party's MPs does it.

Have you got any evidence that it was corruption?

 

[hcblue95]

Is it too much to ask for Starmer and his missus to buy their own clothes and all that other shit Keith is getting for free?

And why are people trying to explain it away as okay? They are meant to represent the working class.

They don't represent the working class. Starmer accepted labour's largest donation ever just before the election, from a tax haven-based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms. £4m.

 

[hampshireblue]

Whether they have broken the rules or not (although they have in certain cases (like Rayner not declaring her chum being accommodated for free in NY, for example), is that really your point?

It's OK to take bungs and splurge on expenses so long as you don't break the rules? Whilst taking £300 a year off people on £10k income per year? Taking money for your personal clothes and trying to hide it as "office expenses". You think this is morally acceptable?

And please don't tell me "well it's not a as bad as what the Tories did". What the Tories may or may not have done, is irrelevant. The Tories are not in power, Labour are. And we are talking about Labour are doing, on the Labour thread.

You're choosing to link 2 completely seperate issues, as I'm sure the Daily Mail and Telegraph and GBN are doing. But just think what you're suggesting:

That Starmer taking donations from a known Labour donor in 2019-2024 whilst in opposition, should have a material impact on policy then introduced when they are in government?

If the rules need to change on this stuff, then so be it, but don't conflate two completely separate issues as you have done.

 

[mosssideblue]

Is it too much to ask for Starmer and his missus to buy their own clothes and all that other shit Keith is getting for free?

And why are people trying to explain it away as okay? They are meant to represent the working class.

Funny, no one’s mentioned this before

 

[Lowtower]

Funny, no one’s mentioned this before

Point taken, but still, fuck me, some people think throwing their support behind a political party means you have to defend them to the death.

The quite moronic argument of "yeah well they were worse" is why we are collectively in this mess to begin with.