21 Sep
8:12am, 21 Sep 2024
8,861 posts
|
um
Not a good look ... Although the table may be compromised by the rule that 'ministers only had to make declarations if they chose to' One very good thing about Tony Blair was his 100 day plan. Seems the current labour leadership didn't have a similar 'create a good impact fast' leadership plan. |
21 Sep
8:20am, 21 Sep 2024
5,762 posts
|
Cheeky’s Dad
And it plays particularly badly in what feels like a deliberately promoted atmosphere of gloom. In addition to the moral ambivalence of actually taking the stuff, it’s so disappointing that nobody appears to have noticed how badly it would play. Given how cautious they all were of public perception before the election (when, presumably all this was happening) it feels like such an obvious act of self harm
|
21 Sep
8:28am, 21 Sep 2024
28,361 posts
|
TROSaracen
Although some here have argued the nuances of the Labour sleaze vs Tory sleaze and concluded ‘not as bad’, the man on the Clapham Omnibus just sees ‘more of the same sleaze’. I believe Governments have a number of ‘lives’ - mistakes they can make, before that tipping point when they will get turfed out next opportunity. Some will be uncontrollable events, others self inflicted. This first life spent is entirely self inflicted, and very early when ‘first impressions’ are made. They need to be squeaky clean now. It’s been a poor start. |
21 Sep
8:28am, 21 Sep 2024
11,692 posts
|
Fields
John McDonnell wrote an article for the guardian saying his namesake Keir Hardie would be spinning in his grave. theguardian.com He goes on to say that Labour have spent the first 100 days squabbling over power and their pay, and compares to the 1924 government who were instead outlining their socialist vision for the country etc. If you accept (which I think we all can do) that Starmer’s Labour aren’t going to have a socialist vision for the country, the question still is what is the vision and how is it being enacted both in policies and in their day to day lives. He also adds: “Labour is seen clinging to an out-of-date fiscal rule that restricts desperately needed investment in our public services and infrastructure. Ruling out the redistribution of wealth through tax reform to tackle the grotesque levels of poverty and inequality in our society poses the question in an increasing number of minds: just what does Labour exist for?” Now clearly McDonnell is on the left of the Labour Party but the point is that the first 100 days have largely been squandered and Labour should be the party of working people not corporations. Reading the article I felt like it was one I could have written myself. |
21 Sep
8:29am, 21 Sep 2024
4,527 posts
|
Cheg
The suits and glasses are obviously a bad look. The wife’s clothing I think is nuanced. Particularly when she is the PM’s wife there is an expectation that she wears the high end stuff. Even on his wage £20k is still a chunk of change. The accommodation, using a donor’s flat. The optics aren’t terrific, but the £ value looks worse when it’s a high end flat. Just a day or two is 10’s of thousands. But no money has changed hands. It’s the use of an asset. Whether a donor gives £10k or lends you his flat. For me the one more likely to buy influence is the cash. Both are allowed under the current rules. The one I’m least concerned about are the sports and entertainment. Particularly the football. He had a season ticket, for security reasons they’ve moved him to a box. The only person missing out on revenue is Arsenal. I don’t think they’ve bought influence. Just some nice PR that the PM attends their matches. Watch any sport, anywhere. Wimbledon, champs league, Euros you see the famous faces. You think they’ve queued on ticketmaster? You think they’ve paid face value? Obviously not. |
|
21 Sep
9:17am, 21 Sep 2024
5,763 posts
|
Cheeky’s Dad
Much common sense on here this morning imho. I think it increases the stakes that there is a sense of a directional vacuum. That’s not entirely fair and I’m sure the government would point to all the things they have been doing and (probably fairly) could claim to have been very busy. However, the budget looms increasingly large and until the question of how much money there will be & where it comes from is answered we can’t really see the direction of travel. It was a choice to create (or allow) that ambiguity but it does feel like Reeves is going to need to pull a pretty sizeable rabbit out of that red box. I really hope they have a plan. If not the air is going to come out of this government horribly quickly and we really don’t need that to happen. Not in a partisan sense but because there are so many issues and currently no effective opposition. He downside risks of rapid failure for this government are really concerning |
21 Sep
9:46am, 21 Sep 2024
6,509 posts
|
paulcook
One of his bigger donors is the Premier League. At the same time as according to a manifesto promise, he's supposed to be setting up an independent football body. Not much conflict of interests. What benefits are they and other donors getting? And none of this doesn't really ring true with this promise from January. theguardian.com But he's never seemed entirely truthful with maintaining his pledges. |
21 Sep
9:53am, 21 Sep 2024
46,190 posts
|
SPR
I think most people might buy the security argument for sport and his previous season ticket shows he has was prepared to attend by paying out of his own pocket. I think the clothing for his wife, you could argue he should be trying to change the expectations. The PM can be a normal person as can their partner, there's no need for them to be keeping up appearances. The thing is, before all this came out, it was revealed the main donor had a pass to No 10 for some reason. It was known he was a major donor at the time so it already has a look of cash for access. Clearly the climate of doom they created has a big effect here as well and that seems to be their 100 day legacy. I don't anyone is convinced an austerity plan (which is what the doom messages seem to indicate) will definitely lead to things getting better eventually either. |
|
21 Sep
10:00am, 21 Sep 2024
4,528 posts
|
Cheg
But what if he goes against what the premier league wants and sets up an independent football body? If we really thinking our PM can be bought by moving his regular seat to a plush seat with some prawn sandwiches we are dead already. |
|
21 Sep
10:02am, 21 Sep 2024
4,529 posts
|
Cheg
There was a good story on the newsagents about Cameron’s wife wearing a marks and Spencer’s suit. Nice sensible purchase, turns out the tailoring she had done to alter it was about 3 times the cost of the clothing.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Nov 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018