|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 2, 2024 18:35:17 GMT
Yeah, I never though Abbott would accept a peerage but on the general point of Lords reform/"abolition", Starmer will need to appoint people who are in favour of that policy to the upper chamber in order for them to vote for it as a gang of kamikaze cronies of sorts. As for health issues, with the official Labour candidacy now seemingly assured and the next Parliament likely to last until Abbott is in her mid-70s, we'll just have to hope she remains reasonably able to represent her constituents throughout that time.
As we will for all the other 649 elected MPs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2024 18:36:46 GMT
Leaving aside the blatant lie about him being "the bigger offender" (no proceedings were brought against Starmer, whereas the PM got a Fixed Penalty Notice, the first and so far only British PM to ever get a criminal penalty while in office, with the added bonus that it was for an offence which he passed into law), I think anyone who considers that going big on Partygate was some sort of error of judgement which has hurt the Labour Party is not really in a good position to be handing down judgments about who is a "natural politician" How poor old "Keith" must lie awake agonising about the constant reminders he receives from the public every day about some curry or whatever, crying as he looks at his approval ratings, while Boris Johnson proceeds serenely on his way as PM with his party continuing to hold the massive lead in the polls that it has enjoyed ever since the Covid vaccine roll-out. Or, perhaps not. The "Sleepy Keith" thing is the usual playground insults, snuck in on the assumption that no-one will stoop to counter it and that maybe eventually it will stick, but worth noting in this context as another piece of misjudgement, since the pathetic "Sleepy Keir Starmer" thing went down like a dead balloon with the general public for the obvious reason that it's silly beyond words. Insult not very original either. Straight out of the MAGA playbook. 'Sleepy Joe' doesn't work and 'sleepy Keith' definitely doesn't work - Starmer is 20 years younger than Biden. |
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,418
Member is Online
|
Post by hengog on Jun 2, 2024 18:43:05 GMT
I don’t disagree with a lot of that. And never thought either HMRC or the police would be interested in pursuing a case , especially with her having retained expensive lawyers once she was rumbled over a ( likely) minor untruth. But let’s just look at that simple bit. If you really believe she was telling the truth about where she claimed to be living, , then you are more naive than I think you are! You’re also wrong I think in how you perceive Conservatives see her. I don’t think she’s seen as a serious “ attack dog” at all. More an entertainment. There’s always been a soft spot for a certain kind of blousey woman of a certain age, from the Wife of Bath to Elsie Tanner or Peggy Mitchell. Sure as eggs are eggs she will at some point be an embarrassment for Starmer. Good luck to her!
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2024 19:17:12 GMT
Yeah, I never though Abbott would accept a peerage but on the general point of Lords reform/"abolition", Starmer will need to appoint people who are in favour of that policy to the upper chamber in order for them to vote for it as a gang of kamikaze cronies of sorts. As for health issues, with the official Labour candidacy now seemingly assured and the next Parliament likely to last until Abbott is in her mid-70s, we'll just have to hope she remains reasonably able to represent her constituents throughout that time.
As we will for all the other 649 elected MPs.
For as many of the other 649 who actually take their seats, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 19:50:37 GMT
I don’t disagree with a lot of that. And never thought either HMRC or the police would be interested in pursuing a case , especially with her having retained expensive lawyers once she was rumbled over a ( likely) minor untruth. But let’s just look at that simple bit. If you really believe she was telling the truth about where she claimed to be living, , then you are more naive than I think you are! You’re also wrong I think in how you perceive Conservatives see her. I don’t think she’s seen as a serious “ attack dog” at all. More an entertainment. There’s always been a soft spot for a certain kind of blousey woman of a certain age, from the Wife of Bath to Elsie Tanner or Peggy Mitchell. Sure as eggs are eggs she will at some point be an embarrassment for Starmer. Good luck to her! I see. So why expend so much effort attacking her for something most people see as trivial, if there was a tax liability at all, if Tories have a “soft spot” for her? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 2, 2024 20:13:14 GMT
I may not have remembered some salient detail, but in what way did Starmer gift the Hartlepool by-election to the Tories? All I can remember is that Mike Hill was accused of harassment or other sexually or otherwise inappropriate behaviour, and resigned without being told he had to. Was that really Keir Starmer's fault? I don't remember it being seen that way, but of course I may have forgotten something.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Jun 2, 2024 20:24:22 GMT
I don’t disagree with a lot of that. And never thought either HMRC or the police would be interested in pursuing a case , especially with her having retained expensive lawyers once she was rumbled over a ( likely) minor untruth. But let’s just look at that simple bit. If you really believe she was telling the truth about where she claimed to be living, , then you are more naive than I think you are! You’re also wrong I think in how you perceive Conservatives see her. I don’t think she’s seen as a serious “ attack dog” at all. More an entertainment. There’s always been a soft spot for a certain kind of blousey woman of a certain age, from the Wife of Bath to Elsie Tanner or Peggy Mitchell. Sure as eggs are eggs she will at some point be an embarrassment for Starmer. Good luck to her! When people are dredging up incidents from many years ago, is she supposed to not bother hiring an 'expensive' solicitor but get some unqualified paralegal from a community law centre to deal with it? The garbage posted on this thread is verging on the Trumpian. We would not be getting this crap if the Tories were 20 point up in the polls rather than 20 points down. There is also the seeming importance of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. It has never been seen as a particularly important role. It was used to give Herbert Morrison a seat on the NEC when the constituencies would never elect him. The last, bar Rayner, was Tom Watson! Most of the others including Ted Short and Jim Griffiths were never really seen as potential leaders with the possible exception of Denis Healey. Only Clem Attlee and Michael Foot have ever gone on to be party leader, save a couple of caretaker roles. Foot was only put forward as a placeholder after Tony Benn lost his seat. |
|
joe
Non-Aligned
Posts: 38
|
Post by joe on Jun 2, 2024 21:06:54 GMT
boy does Diane Abbott not seem to want to stand for labour
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 2, 2024 21:07:52 GMT
How many days ago was it that it was commented on this thread that Diane Abbott doesn't run her social media accounts?
|
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,418
Member is Online
|
Post by hengog on Jun 2, 2024 21:31:17 GMT
I don’t disagree with a lot of that. And never thought either HMRC or the police would be interested in pursuing a case , especially with her having retained expensive lawyers once she was rumbled over a ( likely) minor untruth. But let’s just look at that simple bit. If you really believe she was telling the truth about where she claimed to be living, , then you are more naive than I think you are! You’re also wrong I think in how you perceive Conservatives see her. I don’t think she’s seen as a serious “ attack dog” at all. More an entertainment. There’s always been a soft spot for a certain kind of blousey woman of a certain age, from the Wife of Bath to Elsie Tanner or Peggy Mitchell. Sure as eggs are eggs she will at some point be an embarrassment for Starmer. Good luck to her! I see. So why expend so much effort attacking her for something most people see as trivial, if there was a tax liability at all, if Tories have a “soft spot” for her? I can’t speak for everyone! But mostly, I’d say…..fun. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 21:38:21 GMT
I see. So why expend so much effort attacking her for something most people see as trivial, if there was a tax liability at all, if Tories have a “soft spot” for her? I can’t speak for everyone! But mostly, I’d say…..fun. That’s fine in some terms but, as I’ve said, it doesn’t appear to help the Conservative cause and probably, if anything, harms it. But things may have reached the point where having fun is a pretty reasonable goal? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 2, 2024 21:38:28 GMT
Apparently it's fake
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306
|
Post by maxque on Jun 2, 2024 21:53:39 GMT
The so-called Abbott comment doesn't even look to be written in the right font for Twitter. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 21:57:38 GMT
She'd demand that for any Tory, and if she'd got a clean bill of health then she'd have released it - she doesn't strike me as someone who takes any confidentiality principles as being more serious than her career. This stinks, although if I was in HMRC I'd not want to be responsible for any serious upset to an incoming government. If Rayner had simply said "this is a mistake any one could make in a complex area that seems simple, sorry and here's the £10,000" then this would have stopped - and it couldn't have been reopened. As she's left it, it can be reopened either as a threat or a way of getting her out of the way. I appreciate that Tories particularly don’t like Rayner. I’m not sure whether it’s her regular employment as an attack dog hinted at here or the ginger growler business but she clearly gets hackles raised. I’ve said before that pursuit of her over this is likely to be counterproductive but I recognise that my advice may not be seen as objective. Let me explain it. Let’s assume that she should have declared a taxable gain back when she sold the property years ago. Most experts looking at the figures place the maximum possible liability at comfortably less than the £10k you kindly volunteered. Let’s set that against a Tory tax issue - Zahawi perhaps? Do you see where pursuing this argument goes? Add to that the perception of her as a working class woman with few advantages and the property in question being an ex-council house - familiar stuff to many ordinary voters. All I can say is if this is seen as a good tactic in the Conservative team, press on. HMRC rather wisely have chosen not to bother for whatever reason (including that they don’t think there’s a liability). We tend not to try and lean on the tax authorities in this country. I must say if I were a Tory strategist I’d stick to that line! Politicisation of the body would of course be generally harmful but I doubt I’m alone in suspecting where more of the consequent discomfort might lie? This is likely to be an honest mistake rather than fraud - tax on second homes are a complex area that looks relatively simple at first glance. I doubt that if she'd come clean it would be a career killer. But she hasn't come clean, she just wants us to take her word for it. Perhaps her word is hiding some innocence that she doesn't want to prove beyond doubt even though she has the clear evidence for it. Perhaps. But as you point out it won't affect this election and the Tories are probably best to ignore this. That doesn't mean it's over. As Churchill said his opponents faced him in the House of Commons, it was his enemies who were on the same beches. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 2, 2024 22:22:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 22:24:28 GMT
I appreciate that Tories particularly don’t like Rayner. I’m not sure whether it’s her regular employment as an attack dog hinted at here or the ginger growler business but she clearly gets hackles raised. I’ve said before that pursuit of her over this is likely to be counterproductive but I recognise that my advice may not be seen as objective. Let me explain it. Let’s assume that she should have declared a taxable gain back when she sold the property years ago. Most experts looking at the figures place the maximum possible liability at comfortably less than the £10k you kindly volunteered. Let’s set that against a Tory tax issue - Zahawi perhaps? Do you see where pursuing this argument goes? Add to that the perception of her as a working class woman with few advantages and the property in question being an ex-council house - familiar stuff to many ordinary voters. All I can say is if this is seen as a good tactic in the Conservative team, press on. HMRC rather wisely have chosen not to bother for whatever reason (including that they don’t think there’s a liability). We tend not to try and lean on the tax authorities in this country. I must say if I were a Tory strategist I’d stick to that line! Politicisation of the body would of course be generally harmful but I doubt I’m alone in suspecting where more of the consequent discomfort might lie? This is likely to be an honest mistake rather than fraud - tax on second homes are a complex area that looks relatively simple at first glance. I doubt that if she'd come clean it would be a career killer. But she hasn't come clean, she just wants us to take her word for it. Perhaps her word is hiding some innocence that she doesn't want to prove beyond doubt even though she has the clear evidence for it. Perhaps. But as you point out it won't affect this election and the Tories are probably best to ignore this. That doesn't mean it's over. As Churchill said his opponents faced him in the House of Commons, it was his enemies who were on the same beches. You continue to suggest that she has done something wrong when the processes available at the time (2015 - 9 years ago - I’d again draw your attention to the HMRC’s powers in these circumstances) found nothing and the further, recent investigations prompted by your colleagues also came to naught. You essentially ask that she proves her “innocence” to us all. Would that be the approach that you would wish to be followed with the historical tax returns of all MPs? The fact is I don’t know exactly what happened. I’m sure you don’t. The relevant authorities, within their powers, have looked at it and said they’ll do no more. The sum involved appears small, if a liability at all. Bothering about it appears counterproductive but a small number of Tories seem keen. It’s their, and your, call. Incidentally, since CGT is a tax liability a person must declare themselves, all of us ask that our word is taken. However the tax authorities do have access to information that can prompt investigation if that seems appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jun 2, 2024 22:38:56 GMT
If it's real, I can imagine that someone in her office is getting the sack.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 3, 2024 8:48:14 GMT
I appreciate that Tories particularly don’t like Rayner. I’m not sure whether it’s her regular employment as an attack dog hinted at here or the ginger growler business but she clearly gets hackles raised. I’ve said before that pursuit of her over this is likely to be counterproductive but I recognise that my advice may not be seen as objective. Let me explain it. Let’s assume that she should have declared a taxable gain back when she sold the property years ago. Most experts looking at the figures place the maximum possible liability at comfortably less than the £10k you kindly volunteered. Let’s set that against a Tory tax issue - Zahawi perhaps? Do you see where pursuing this argument goes? Add to that the perception of her as a working class woman with few advantages and the property in question being an ex-council house - familiar stuff to many ordinary voters. All I can say is if this is seen as a good tactic in the Conservative team, press on. HMRC rather wisely have chosen not to bother for whatever reason (including that they don’t think there’s a liability). We tend not to try and lean on the tax authorities in this country. I must say if I were a Tory strategist I’d stick to that line! Politicisation of the body would of course be generally harmful but I doubt I’m alone in suspecting where more of the consequent discomfort might lie? This is likely to be an honest mistake rather than fraud - tax on second homes are a complex area that looks relatively simple at first glance. I doubt that if she'd come clean it would be a career killer. But she hasn't come clean, she just wants us to take her word for it. Perhaps her word is hiding some innocence that she doesn't want to prove beyond doubt even though she has the clear evidence for it. Perhaps. But as you point out it won't affect this election and the Tories are probably best to ignore this. That doesn't mean it's over. As Churchill said his opponents faced him in the House of Commons, it was his enemies who were on the same beches. Don't lose the majesty of the Churchillian quote made in response to a very young new MP who had casually averred to the 'enemy' being 'over there on the opposition benches'. To which Churchill responded (this from decades old memories) ... 'Oh! Not at all. That dear boy, is the massed forces of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. (Pregnant pause) 'The 'Enemy' lies on the benches well behind us'! |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 3, 2024 9:24:35 GMT
If it's real, I can imagine that someone in her office is getting the sack. Well that would be a really lovely level of accountability but I’d be shocked lol |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 3, 2024 10:35:18 GMT
According to the Lib Dem podcast about the Chesham & Amersham by-election, the Tories used their second string squad there, saving their primary by-election team for the B & S by-election It was a "low key" Tory campaign in the same way that Hartlepool was - and that worked brilliantly for them. They even used the same platitudinous slogans about "build back better" and "vote for change to failed local Labour", plus bribes promises local goodies would be forthcoming if they voted Tory. And despite the criticism, it would surely have worked had Hancock not blown up in the final week. |
|
