[Bones McCoy]

Well the government are now in crisis folks.

<Stuart Lee> Really, when did this come in? </Stuart Lee>

[Abernathy]

Not sure whether the Weeping One was deploying sarcasm or not (I hope he was), but the notion that Starmer’s government is in crisis is plainly risible.

What is apparent is that a concerted effort is underway - mostly by the usual suspects but with sundry Trots, nutjobs, and Diane Abbott gleefully jumping on the bandwagon that the enemies of Labour are setting rolling.

Starmer and Rayner have clearly done nothing wrong whatsoever, but are being excoriated for certain (essentially inconsequential) things they have done in the not quite three months they have been in government. What it has exposed is certain deficiencies in Starmer’s Number Ten communications operation . It needs to operate as well as the Blair/Campbell operation from 1997, but has had a fairly worrying hiccup in the way that this episode has been handled. One might hope that Alastair Campbell might be prevailed upon for some valuable PR consultancy here, but ultimately, I suppose that this is for Sue Gray and Matt Doyle to sort out between them. It’d be nice if they could do so sooner rather than later.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Oh yes. Trevor Phillips on Sky and Lala Kuenssburger were pushing the 'crisis' as hard as they could. It's co-ordinated, I think, and the usual useful idiots (looking at you Sir Trevor) are just feeding off of it.

When Unite are given an easier ride than Bridget Phillipson...

The Tories have got nothing real to pin on Labour, so they are chewing the ephemeral carpet.

[Oboogie]

Those complaining are applying a clear double standard, Starmer et al, unlike their Tory predecessors (eg Sunak, Jenrick and especially Johnson) have not broken any rules and yet there are no cries for the rules to be changed, only that Labour MPs should not be entitled to gratuities.
Absurdly, Starmer seems to be playing along with this nonsense, merely pledging that Labour MPs will accept no more but not changing the rules to apply to all MPs. MPs of other parties can continue to fill their boots.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Now I'm fucking angry.
I've just seen the attack on Angela Rayner for her and her bloke staying in Lord Alli's New York flat.
Lord Alli and I have a lot in common, we are both long-term Labour members and we both give money to the party above our subs. Though admittedly he gives a bit more than I do. Unlike me, Angela Rayner is a friend of his.
So when he let this friend use his apartment for a holiday in New York - what was he doing that anyone could construe as wrong? He's already a Labour peer- what influence was he hoping for that he doesn't already have? Should I have let my mate Mike use my house in France for a week away - was that some sort of dodgy arrangement?

And that slimy cunt Philp calls it 'weird'. I'll tell you what's fucking weird...

[Bones McCoy]

It's not as though previous Prime Ministers haven't enjoyed holiday hospitality form all manner of shadier donors.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Wallpaper.
Wallfuckingpaper.

Holidays. Weddings.
A donor paid for his fucking wedding.

Cunts.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Now I'm fucking angry.
I've just seen the attack on Angela Rayner for her and her bloke staying in Lord Alli's New York flat.
Lord Alli and I have a lot in common, we are both long-term Labour members and we both give money to the party above our subs. Though admittedly he gives a bit more than I do. Unlike me, Angela Rayner is a friend of his.
So when he let this friend use his apartment for a holiday in New York - what was he doing that anyone could construe as wrong? He's already a Labour peer- what influence was he hoping for that he doesn't already have? Should I have let my mate Mike use my house in France for a week away - was that some sort of dodgy arrangement?

And that slimy cunt Philp calls it 'weird'. I'll tell you what's fucking weird...

Yeah, I think this stuff is bollocks.

I think having him buy clothes if your're in government sounds cheap, but staying in your friend's flat on holiday? What's the issue? What policy change is Alli supposed to have got out of any of this?

[The Weeping Angel]

Not sure whether the Weeping One was deploying sarcasm or not (I hope he was), but the notion that Starmer’s government is in crisis is plainly risible.

What is apparent is that a concerted effort is underway - mostly by the usual suspects but with sundry Trots, nutjobs, and Diane Abbott gleefully jumping on the bandwagon that the enemies of Labour are setting rolling.

Starmer and Rayner have clearly done nothing wrong whatsoever, but are being excoriated for certain (essentially inconsequential) things they have done in the not quite three months they have been in government. What it has exposed is certain deficiencies in Starmer’s Number Ten communications operation . It needs to operate as well as the Blair/Campbell operation from 1997, but has had a fairly worrying hiccup in the way that this episode has been handled. One might hope that Alastair Campbell might be prevailed upon for some valuable PR consultancy here, but ultimately, I suppose that this is for Sue Gray and Matt Doyle to sort out between them. It’d be nice if they could do so sooner rather than later.

I was.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Lexit goon Mick Lynch is on hand to tell Labour mayors how to do it.

People like [Liverpool mayor] Steve Rotheram and Mayor Khan have to stand up and say do they believe in what [transport secretary] Louise Haigh is doing, or are they going to go their own way and keep concessions? Because the money will keep being milked out. We can’t have that any more.”

It's like devolution or something.

I'd guess both of these are very happy with what Haigh is doing, but think that their own model, with local accountability works well enough at the moment, Livingstone was never bothered by it, a big contrast to how bothered he was with the PPP renewal of the tube.

[The Weeping Angel]

I do think they should look at tightening up the rules around donations. But this is a big nothingburger of a scandal.

[Youngian]

Tories taking equivalent donations was such small beer compared to their shenanigans it never came up. But 'They're all just as bad,' lands unfortunately. The circus leaves town swiftly but the press and rest of the media that report their agenda are going to be relentless.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Civil servants were told to rewrite a proposed social media campaign to combat drink-spiking after the original appeared to blame victims, a minister has told Labour conference delegates.

Alex Davies-Jones, the minister for violence against women and girls, suggested that Whitehall encouraged a “culture of victim blaming” and should instead focus on stopping perpetrators.

At a fringe event on Sunday at Labour’s conference in Liverpool, Davies-Jones said she refused to accept the script her civil servants had drawn up ahead of an awareness campaign that was due to coincide with freshers’ week at universities.

Dunno, this seems unnecessary to shit on civil servants like this. I'm not quite clear what the minister's preferred campaign said instead. I get that the Police are targeting the perpetrators in a new way, but I don't see why that shouldn't go alongside practical advice of this sort. If the minister doesn't want to use it, fine, that's her prerogative.

This argument used to come up with unlicensed mini-cabs. Was it victim blaminng to tell people they shouldn't get in them? In those days, mind, lots of police probably did say "silly girl" straight to the face of a rape victim.

[Crabcakes]

Suddenly, it all makes a lot more sense. It’s not about Labour donations and never was. It’s about making sure they know who’s in charge and not to go rocking the boat.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/l ... r-AA1qU8k5

[Abernathy]

Is there really a “minister for violence against women and girls “ ?

I thought we were against that sort of thing.

[davidjay]

Suddenly, it all makes a lot more sense. It’s not about Labour donations and never was. It’s about making sure they know who’s in charge and not to go rocking the boat.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/l ... r-AA1qU8k5

An intersting use of words - "heightening fears" that a government might do the right thing.

[Youngian]

Not sure how a government flexes its muscles against a free press but it probably lies within tax system reform. These uber patriots aren't keen on paying any tax to the UK treasury so maybe they should. Lachlan Murdoch for one will be quick to offload daddy's Limey shit rags once he croaks it.

[Andy McDandy]

Tories taking equivalent donations was such small beer compared to their shenanigans it never came up. But 'They're all just as bad,' lands unfortunately. The circus leaves town swiftly but the press and rest of the media that report their agenda are going to be relentless.

Thousands on duck houses and moat cleaning is extravagant, weird, and bad. But 50p for a chocolate bar is petty, weird, and bad.

The thing about expenses is that a) not many people get to claim them (other than for things like mileage, and they tend to be very tightly regulated), and b) in those cases they tend to be labelled perks, or allowances. Expenses means, to many people, not just free money, but iffily obtained money. Partly because journalists seem to always equate expenses with fraud.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Journalists equate expenses with fraud for very good reason.

[Abernathy]

MPs’ legitimate expenses - for setting up constituency offices, paying staff, office equipment and consumables, and so on - are rightly very comfortably adequate, yet Joe Public in his ignorance - ignorance encouraged by right wing news media - regards those legit expenses as simply being trousered by MPs directly. C.F. : “They’re all the same”, “They’re only in it for themselves”, repeat ad nauseum.