Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:57 pm Tulip Siddiq has resigned. Even though the independent adviser on ministerial standards has investigated her and found that she has not breached the ministerial code. She is apparently resigning purely to avoid being “a distraction”.

This is quite annoying. If every minister chucks in the towel every time they briefly become the focus of hostile media reporting so as not to be a distraction, there’ll be no fucking government left in a very short time.

But there we are. Onward and upward.

A second resignation in six months of this government.

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

This would increase the media perception that Labour are just as bad in office as the Conservatives were recently.

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

What message do you want him to get? I genuinely don't understand.

This would increase the media perception that Labour are just as bad in office as the Conservatives were recently.

Media don't perceive any such thing. They're lying if they think this is like having 5 Prime Ministers in 6 years.

Tulip Siddique is the fifth ranking minister in The Treasury.

Johnson fired ethics advisors, or drove them to quit.

Likewise from me, what message? Because yours seems to be "why doesn't Starmer fuck off?", with no real idea of what or who you'd like to replace him, or which policies to change.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 12:57 pm The position is far from disastrous but it seems like bad fiscal rules are going to bite Labour and Reeves on the arse. I hope if necessary they rewrite them, as she did with the investment rule. It'll be a bit embarrassing but I recall George Osborne repeatedly failing his and getting very little stick, And his was way worse than Labour's.

John McDonnel said cuts would be electoral suicide. Hard not to disagree with that assesment.

It would still be an expansionary budget, but yeah, it could very much end up pleasing nobody. I don't think it's strange that they're saying these things now. Like devaluation, it's unthinkable to break fiscal rules until you do. If you're struggling on sickness benefits you probably don't want to hear about it though, to put it mildly.

They could definitely get more out of gambling. Not really sure too many of those easy non-core taxes there are out there. Maybe the Trump tariff shit doesn't happen?

Do you think they will break the fiscal rules?

Meanwhile in some positive news.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/ ... ights-bill

Landlords in England would be banned from charging more than a month’s rent upfront under changes MPs are due to vote on on Tuesday.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, has amended her renters’ rights bill to limit the amount of money property owners can demand before a tenant moves in, as part of a package of new protections for those in rented accommodation.

The move is one of a number of amendments Rayner has proposed before the bill is debated again by MPs on Tuesday afternoon. The housing secretary is also planning to stop landlords charging friends and family who have acted as guarantors if the renter in question has died.

The amendments add to the core measures in the bill, which will ban no-fault evictions for the first time and make it easier for tenants to demand prompt repairs from their landlords.

Rayner said: “For far too long working people and families have been at the mercy of a fickle and unfair rental market, faced with outrageous upfront costs, and struggling to find a safe and secure place they can truly call home.

“We are delivering on our promise to transform the lives of millions of renters so families can put down roots, allow their children to grow up in secure and healthy homes, and make sure our young people can save for their future.”

I hope they break them if they need to, put it that way. I'd like to see more investment spending- it's still pretty low, even with the tax rises and the extra borrowing. Maybe they can add a bit of rail stuff on, like getting HS2 to Crewe. Not that it would start any time soon, but it's the cheapest part of the project and has some big benefits. If the Tories want to run on gridlocking the WCML forever, they can go right ahead.

There's working class Angela being sidelined by Starmer's poshos again, I see. Hiding away there in Parliament, in charge of some of the biggest policy areas.

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:23 pm

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:57 pm Tulip Siddiq has resigned. Even though the independent adviser on ministerial standards has investigated her and found that she has not breached the ministerial code. She is apparently resigning purely to avoid being “a distraction”.

This is quite annoying. If every minister chucks in the towel every time they briefly become the focus of hostile media reporting so as not to be a distraction, there’ll be no fucking government left in a very short time.

But there we are. Onward and upward.

A second resignation in six months of this government.

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

This would increase the media perception that Labour are just as bad in office as the Conservatives were recently.

It took about 50 for "Boris" to get the message.

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

What's the message Trigger?

Inflation has fallen Reeves is good again, and should announce a load of extra spending.

Well, she shouldn't but that's how silly this stuff is.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:59 pm

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

What's the message Trigger?

St Jeremy would have made every day the first day of Spring.

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:23 pm A second resignation in six months of this government.

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

I’d argue it’s not the number, but the context. Both resignations came from a desire to not become an issue in themselves rather than because they were engaged in any corruption. That shows a level of decency and selflessness largely absent over the past 14 years where ministers could be outright corrupt in office and stay put. Or be fired and reinstated within days.

As to the message, what would that be? The Tory client press are arseholes who’ll sling mud and make implications non-stop? That the Tories and Reform are hypocrites, all raking in cash from anyone but happy to imply someone is corrupt based on a family member’s conduct abroad?

That might be a rather generous view of Tulip Siddique. I don't say she should have disowned her family, but she was publicly much closer to them than was necessary. Bangladesh under her aunt achieved some very decent growth but was massively authoritarian, at times lethally so. That's more of a Galloway or Jonathan Aitken ally than one a mainstream Labour MPs should be having.

She may or may not be guilty of what the Opposition in Bangladesh say, but a better leader than Badenoch would have made "anti-corruption minister investigated for corruption" land much harder. Was a bad appointment, and predictably so. I can only assume that it was because she's an MP near Starmer. Lots of politicians have a weakness for that- see Miliband promoting Caroline Flint.

Fair, but also: she referred herself to the advisor on ministerial conduct, and then was cleared of any rules breaches or impropriety by the independent advisor.

I suspect this scenario has been made all the worse in terms of how it looks by the unfortunate fact she was an anti-corruption minister.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:59 pm

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

What's the message Trigger?

The message was "Even your own party hate you - you lying pile of jizz crusted bullshit".
And Brave sir Boris ran away.

Let's me be clear (Cameron clear), Kier Starmer is facing nothing similar.
Nor should he.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 3:14 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:59 pm

How many more ministers may have to go before the PM gets the message?

What's the message Trigger?

The message was "Even your own party hate you - you lying pile of jizz crusted bullshit".
And Brave sir Boris ran away.

Let's me be clear (Cameron clear), Kier Starmer is facing nothing similar.
Nor should he.

Good grief. Surely that wasn’t what Nev was trying to imply, was it - that 2 ministers resigning for their own issues is in fact somehow them resigning because they have issues with the PM??!?

That’s a reach that Reed Richards would look at and go “fucking hell, that’s a bit far for me”.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 1:53 pm Fair, but also: she referred herself to the advisor on ministerial conduct, and then was cleared of any rules breaches or impropriety by the independent advisor.

I suspect this scenario has been made all the worse in terms of how it looks by the unfortunate fact she was an anti-corruption minister.

Some credit for those things, and contrast with the likes of Priti Patel, but the poor judgement is still there. Not that it matters, nobody knew who she was and even the job title doesn't matter much.