The Labour Government

Mr Kobayashi said:
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

39968540-0-image-a-83_1614725844564.jpg



www.google.com

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 www.google.com
Click to expand...
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.

www.bbc.co.uk

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
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lowtower said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Funny, no one’s mentioned this before
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.