New Labour Leader

[Nuff Said 5,175]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

If i was being pedantic i would agree that angela raynor deserves her own thread, but it's not me attempting to shutdown discussion by deflection or pedantry. So there, chubby chops.

That’s exactly what you’re doing isn’t it?

[Well b back 3,275]

5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

If i was being pedantic i would agree that angela raynor deserves her own thread, but it's not me attempting to shutdown discussion by deflection or pedantry. So there, chubby chops.

In that case could you answer the genuine question I asked ? As to me it seems like you are deliberately ignoring it.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

More whataboutery for RTB:

 

[Fen Canary 866]

On 19/04/2024 at 08:28, Nuff Said said:

More whataboutery for RTB:

 

So because she had a harder upbringing that gives her the right to not pay the taxes she owes? The fact other people are also doing it isn’t really much of a defence.

I’ll agree the amounts involved are rather trivial, but she has often been the first to attack any Tory MP accused of any misdemeanour, no matter how big or slight. If you’re going to do that you’d better make sure there’s no skeletons in your cupboard otherwise you justifiably leave yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Shes been happy to attack the Tories and label them as scum, she can’t really complain when they eye an opportunity to return the favour.

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

57 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So because she had a harder upbringing that gives her the right to not pay the taxes she owes? The fact other people are also doing it isn’t really much of a defence.

I’ll agree the amounts involved are rather trivial, but she has often been the first to attack any Tory MP accused of any misdemeanour, no matter how big or slight. If you’re going to do that you’d better make sure there’s no skeletons in your cupboard otherwise you justifiably leave yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Shes been happy to attack the Tories and label them as scum, she can’t really complain when they eye an opportunity to return the favour.

You are quite right of course. I think the problem is that the Conservative Party has been sitting on this for some time whilst throwing stones at Rayner. That doesn't excuse what Rayner has done either but what concerns me is the wall to wall media coverage of one compared to the other 

 

[Nuff Said 5,175]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

So because she had a harder upbringing that gives her the right to not pay the taxes she owes? The fact other people are also doing it isn’t really much of a defence.

I’ll agree the amounts involved are rather trivial, but she has often been the first to attack any Tory MP accused of any misdemeanour, no matter how big or slight. If you’re going to do that you’d better make sure there’s no skeletons in your cupboard otherwise you justifiably leave yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Shes been happy to attack the Tories and label them as scum, she can’t really complain when they eye an opportunity to return the favour.

Hmm, this feels like reductionism to me. Just because Rayner has one small - and so old that it is unprosecutable - potential offence against her, it is in a different league to the way those like Rees-Mogg behave and think is acceptable because it’s “business”, or within the rules if you twist them far enough. If you lose your temper and shove me, that doesn’t justify me stabbing you back.
 

That's not the point of the post though. Boles is an ex-Tory MP. Even those on the same side as the government think this isn’t a good look.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

48 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You are quite right of course. I think the problem is that the Conservative Party has been sitting on this for some time whilst throwing stones at Rayner. That doesn't excuse what Rayner has done either but what concerns me is the wall to wall media coverage of one compared to the other 

 

Hadn’t the donors given the money to the Tories?

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

15 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Hadn’t the donors given the money to the Tories?

Yes they had donated the money to the Conservative Party. Menzies stole it and used it for personal purposes. 

[Fen Canary 866]

For what it’s worth I agree, I don’t like the way politicians are attacked for things that happen in their private lives. I didn’t like it when people were attacking Johnson for his chaotic love life and I don’t like it now people are attacking Rayner for something that happened many years in the past.

However that’s the way politics is currently, and Rayner has been one of the biggest culprits therefore I have absolutely no sympathy for her. The hypocrisy from her annoys me much more than the alleged tax dodging, and I find all those who have been slamming the Tories for their shady tax affairs now jumping to her defence simply because it’s their preferred side in the firing line rather childish.

I’d rather we debated MPs on their policies and competence rather than their private lives but until all sides agree to do so that’s the system we’ve got 

[Daz Sparks 1,182]

15 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

For what it’s worth I agree, I don’t like the way politicians are attacked for things that happen in their private lives. I didn’t like it when people were attacking Johnson for his chaotic love life and I don’t like it now people are attacking Rayner for something that happened many years in the past.

However that’s the way politics is currently, and Rayner has been one of the biggest culprits therefore I have absolutely no sympathy for her. The hypocrisy from her annoys me much more than the alleged tax dodging, and I find all those who have been slamming the Tories for their shady tax affairs now jumping to her defence simply because it’s their preferred side in the firing line rather childish.

I’d rather we debated MPs on their policies and competence rather than their private lives but until all sides agree to do so that’s the system we’ve got 

I agree with most of this Fen, and if Rayner is found to have done wrong, she will stand down, which is a shame, because she is a plain speaking woman, who seems to strike a chord with ordinary people, however, as the saying goes, live by the sword... etc.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

More evenhanded than I would be, but this says it all. 

“Another thing the Conservatives might ask themselves is whether their prospects are going to be enhanced by making the conduct of politicians the primary electoral battlefield. Voters are realistic enough not to expect a Labour government to be a congregation of saints, but they already look at the Tories as a cesspit of sinners. For breaking the law, bullying civil servants, sexual predation and just about any other form of bad behaviour you can think of, the past 14 years has seen a huge rollcall of ministers who were fired or forced to jump before they were pushed.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/21/the-tories-are-playing-a-risky-game-with-their-relentless-pursuit-of-angela-rayner?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 18/04/2024 at 20:16, Nuff Said said:

That’s exactly what you’re doing isn’t it?

Not at all, I'm all glee. Do carry on.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 18/04/2024 at 21:27, Well b back said:

In that case could you answer the genuine question I asked ? As to me it seems like you are deliberately ignoring it.

I beg your pudding, I missed your post in the blizzzard of responses to my original post. My point of being here is not to stretch the pointy finger of judgement at Angela, but more to remind my fellow Pinkun posters that sleaze doesn't exist on just one side of the House of Commons, which you might think if you were a visiting alien, and new to this forum. I am here to add balance

On your other point, what bloke and what crime are you on about?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 18/04/2024 at 21:28, Nuff Said said:

More whataboutery for RTB:

 

This sounds like a bloke after a cheap shag...

[Nuff Said 5,175]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

This sounds like a bloke after a cheap shag...

I can only defer to your clearly far more comprehensive experience.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

On 20/04/2024 at 08:53, Fen Canary said:

For what it’s worth I agree, I don’t like the way politicians are attacked for things that happen in their private lives. I didn’t like it when people were attacking Johnson for his chaotic love life and I don’t like it now people are attacking Rayner for something that happened many years in the past.

However that’s the way politics is currently, and Rayner has been one of the biggest culprits therefore I have absolutely no sympathy for her. The hypocrisy from her annoys me much more than the alleged tax dodging, and I find all those who have been slamming the Tories for their shady tax affairs now jumping to her defence simply because it’s their preferred side in the firing line rather childish.

I’d rather we debated MPs on their policies and competence rather than their private lives but until all sides agree to do so that’s the system we’ve got 

You appear to have decided she’s guilty in advance of a verdict from anyone with actual access to evidence. Or is it a case of throwing enough mud to assume some of it has stuck?
 

Even the Tory who eventually pressured GMP into investigating what had happened when asked what he wanted them to search for could only say “Certain matters… regarding certain things.” 

Edited April 21 by Nuff Said

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

35 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

You appear to have decided she’s guilty in advance of a verdict from anyone with actual access to evidence. Or is it a case of throwing enough mud to assume some of it has stuck?
 

Even the Tory who eventually pressured GMP into investigating what had happened when asked what he wanted them to search for could only say “Certain matters… regarding certain things.” 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found

In the opinion of this tax expert in the New Statesman, her statement demonstrated a misunderstanding of the tax rules while she was also claiming at the same time she'd taken expert tax advice, which seemed to be at odds with her lack of understanding.

Edited April 21 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 866]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

You appear to have decided she’s guilty in advance of a verdict from anyone with actual access to evidence. Or is it a case of throwing enough mud to assume some of it has stuck?
 

Even the Tory who eventually pressured GMP into investigating what had happened when asked what he wanted them to search for could only say “Certain matters… regarding certain things.” 

I’ve never said anything of the sort. However my point still stands that she has enjoyed being Labours attack dog over the last few years, so if she has been found to have been bending the rules herself you can’t blame the Tories for gleefully going in all guns blazing.

I also find it hypocritical all those now seemingly defending her, when if she’d been on the government benches their view would be the polar opposite 

[DraytonBoy 160]

Rayner and Labour have been a bit foolish IMO. Her refusal to publish the tax advice she received merely aids the media's pursuit of her and the party's support of her stance could be damaging in an election year if she is found to have made a mistake given that she is the party's most vocal attack dog on Tory sleaze.

Starmer should have a quiet word and suggest to Rayner that now is the time to come clean.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

You appear to have decided she’s guilty in advance of a verdict from anyone with actual access to evidence.

 

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ve never said anything of the sort.

 

11 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

The hypocrisy from her annoys me much more than the alleged tax dodging

(Ignore the “xxxx said” above, first one is me, second and third are you)

 

If she is innocent, and we don’t yet know, then she hasn’t been hypocritical. Yet you’re accusing her of hypocrisy in advance of any conclusion. Wait and see what happens first.

 

Having said that, I don’t believe this is about the result of the investigation, it’s mainly being done to generate some noise to try and counter the repeated negative news coming from the government. Especially given that most of the potential offences happened too long ago for any action to be taken now. On the doorstep and in interviews, Tories will be able to cast some shade and say “no smoke without fire” regardless of the outcome. Whether the public see them as equivalent in scale remains to be seen.

 

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I also find it hypocritical all those now seemingly defending her, when if she’d been on the government benches their view would be the polar opposite 

We support Norwich, so we slag off Ipswich. We support Labour (or the Lib Dems or the Greens or whoever), so we slag off the Tories and stand up for the side we believe in, especially when we believe they are being criticised unfairly. Is that so surprising?

[Barbe bleu 832]

15 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

If she is innocent, and we don’t yet know, then she hasn’t been hypocritical. Yet you’re accusing her of hypocrisy in advance of any conclusion. Wait and see what happens first.

Mainly  although, if i recall correctly, she did call for some MPs to resign whilst under investigation though so there is still a charge of hypocrisy to be answered. Mind you no one did resign so maybe she is entitled to follow suit having 'reviewed her own advice'

17 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

Having said that, I don’t believe this is about the result of the investigation, it’s mainly being done to generate some noise to try and counter the repeated negative news coming from the government. Especially given that most of the potential offences happened too long ago for any action to be taken now. 

Agree with most of that. Tories went after her because she was the attack dog and they saw an opportunity to neutralise her and to relieve some pressure on them- it's not really about 'seeing  justice done',  it never is.

Second part is interesting. We don't actually know what she is accused of so can't really conclude that no action can be taken.  If that does prove to be the case then 'yea I did it, but I got away with it for lomg enough' isnt the best line with which the draw this to a conclusion. So maybe she will want to explain herself and her advice to square it off nicely for her?

 

[Fen Canary 866]

32 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

We support Norwich, so we slag off Ipswich. We support Labour (or the Lib Dems or the Greens or whoever), so we slag off the Tories and stand up for the side we believe in, especially when we believe they are being criticised unfairly. Is that so surprising?

I disagree there, politics to me isn’t partisan or tribal. I don’t support anybody and I’ve never understood those that do who are happy to overlook or bat away criticism of a particular side just because it’s the one they support.

At each election I put a cross beside who I think will be the best (or more often than not the least worst) option for myself and the country for the next few years. I’ve no loyalties to any of them and I’ve never really understood why others have.

My missus’ favoured party could vow to copy Herod and slaughter all the young boys in the country and she’d still dutifully vote for them and it baffles me.

As for the charges of hypocrisy, I seem to remember (maybe others can correct me if I’m wrong) her saying others should step aside while they’re under investigation for shady dealings. Maybe my accusations of hypocrisy should be aimed at those defending her rather than Rayner herself, but to try and label the opposition laying into her as bullying is frankly pathetic in my eyes when she has often gleefully put the boot into anybody else who has been accused dodgy goings on so to claim it being done to her is somehow morally wrong I think is rather childish 

[Nuff Said 5,175]

12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I disagree there, politics to me isn’t partisan or tribal. I don’t support anybody and I’ve never understood those that do who are happy to overlook or bat away criticism of a particular side just because it’s the one they support.

It is very much tribal for me, I have a visceral dislike of most on the right and what they stand for. I hope I am man enough to acknowledge it’s not black and white, and I know from personal experience most people are tolerable one on one even when their values differ greatly from mine. I would even go so far as to say there are some decent Tories (or were, not many left these days). Not all though. 
 

But what they’ve repeatedly done to the country throughout my lifetime, and how they continue to punch down while spouting some brainless creed about personal responsibility, all while getting and giving legs up from their background and their mates, makes me want to puke. That is ingrained in me forever.

I very much don’t want to (re)start the proportional representation debate on this thread but I do wonder how much my pretty binary attitude has been formed by our voting system though.

Edited April 22 by Nuff Said

[Fen Canary 866]

11 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

It is very much tribal for me, I have a visceral dislike of most on the right and what they stand for. I hope I am man enough to acknowledge it’s not black and white, and I know from personal experience most people are tolerable one on one even when their values differ greatly from mine. I would even go so far as to say there are some decent Tories (or were, not many left these days). Not all though. 
 

But what they’ve repeatedly done to the country throughout my lifetime, and how they continue to punch down while spouting some brainless creed about personal responsibility, all while getting and giving legs up from their background and their mates, makes me want to puke. That is ingrained in me forever.

I very much don’t want to (re)start the proportional representation debate on this thread but I do wonder how much my pretty binary attitude has been formed by our voting system though.

That to me simply implies a lack of critical thinking, voting on personality rather than policies 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

20 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

I very much don’t want to (re)start the proportional representation debate on this thread but I do wonder how much my pretty binary attitude has been formed by our voting system though.

All of it. People are so conditioned into it, even supporters of smaller parties define themselves relative to the two big parties. Even in the Lib Dems there was basically a Toryish camp and a Labourish camp.

It's so tiresome.

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

That to me simply implies a lack of critical thinking, voting on personality rather than policies 

It's not voting on personality, it's voting on trust. 

If you were interviewing for a Managing Director for your business and had 2 applicants for the job would you appoint someone who had a 14 year record of sheer incompetence along with a history of dishonesty and corruption?

I appreciate that it would be preferable to have a difference in policies but the country has been completely trashed and there is no money to do anything but the bare minimum. So you basically have a choice between Starmer or Arthur Daly. 

[Fen Canary 866]

23 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's not voting on personality, it's voting on trust. 

If you were interviewing for a Managing Director for your business and had 2 applicants for the job would you appoint someone who had a 14 year record of sheer incompetence along with a history of dishonesty and corruption?

I appreciate that it would be preferable to have a difference in policies but the country has been completely trashed and there is no money to do anything but the bare minimum. So you basically have a choice between Starmer or Arthur Daly. 

But that wasn’t what was implied by Nuff. They basically said they vote for Labour irrespective of what policies they propose

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

35 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

But that wasn’t what was implied by Nuff. They basically said they vote for Labour irrespective of what policies they propose

That applies to 50% of the population and it's not really a surprise. When I've canvassed I've found that the reasons people vote one way or another are often embedded at a very young age. There are 2 sorts of people in this world. Those who care for others and those who don't. 

[Fen Canary 866]

3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That applies to 50% of the population and it's not really a surprise. When I've canvassed I've found that the reasons people vote one way or another are often embedded at a very young age. There are 2 sorts of people in this world. Those who care for others and those who don't. 

Am I to assume that you believe anybody who doesn’t vote the same doesn’t care for others? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

26 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Am I to assume that you believe anybody who doesn’t vote the same doesn’t care for others? 

Emotional blackmail is core to the Labour brand.