Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[AM9]

Well he is only 53, i guess he feels he has plenty of time.

And as Johnson became the Uxbridge MP whilst he was still Mayor, so can anybody else.

 

[JW4]

I think it will be closer than people think, at least Labour have finally chosen a candidate for WM mayor who doesn't look like he's just spent a night in the cells like the last two did.

The Tories and Street are using the unknown argument as well as Birmingham City Council’s woes

 

[birchesgreen]

Sure its the Tories, they don't seem to be mentioned, is that for the Green party candidate?

 

[JW4]

Sure its the Tories, they don't seem to be mentioned, is that for the Green party candidate?

That’s the idea.
In the very small print at the bottom of the front page it reads:
“Promoted by Max Hopfl on behalf of West Midlands Conservatives both of Campaign Centre….”

 

[Gloster]

The Conservatives have a history of putting out pseudo newspapers in the colours of other parties.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Conservatives have a history of putting out pseudo newspapers in the colours of other parties.

Yeah, it's a very misleading thing that seems to be catching on. I've seen the same thing digitally too - Emails from the Tories with a Sender that says something like 'Labour Watch' and with red as the dominant colour everywhere, and likewise, emails from Labour with the Sender as something like 'Tory Watch' and with blue as the dominant colour everywhere. It does seem to be something where the law needs tightening up to prevent it.

 

[Thirteen]

I suspect if Sadiq Khan does win then it'll be his final term. While there is no term limits, I'm not sure if he would want to do a fourth term.

 

[birchesgreen]

Having said all that, standard party colours is a fairly recent thing. I remember watching the 1970s election programmes they used to show on BBC Parliament and it was interesting that the same parties in different constituencies would have their own colours.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Having said all that, standard party colours is a fairly recent thing. I remember watching the 1970s election programmes they used to show on BBC Parliament and it was interesting that the same parties in different constituencies would have their own colours.

There's a bit of a potted history of the colours of parties here: https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/ne...and-red-tories-evolution-party-colour-schemes.

I would imagine that prior to the 1970s, a consistent colour wouldn't have been seen as so important because so much tv was black and white anyway, and heading back to the 50s when tv ownership was rarer, people would have tended to get their news from the radio or (black and white) newspapers. And in those days, colour printing was so much more expensive compared to plain black ink that I'd imagine almost all election leaflets etc. would have been black and white too. So there just wouldn't have been much reason for people to associate particular colours with particular parties.

But these days, colour is one of the prime ways that people visually distinguish literature/advertising/etc. from the different parties, so I think there's a good argument that parties should respect each others' colours, and not seek to mislead people with the 'wrong' colours.

 

[birchesgreen]

But these days, colour is one of the prime ways that people visually distinguish literature/advertising/etc. from the different parties, so I think there's a good argument that parties should respect each others' colours, and not seek to mislead people with the 'wrong' colours.

Indeed it was just something i found interesting.

 

[The Ham]

Well he is only 53, i guess he feels he has plenty of time.

Maybe not in UK politics, but certainly US politics!!!

 

[nw1]

What do people make of this Angela Rayner controversy, something to do with her selling her council house?

All over the Mail front page.

Is there something in it? Should Starmer suspend her while the investigation is taking place?

Is there a risk that this is a big enough deal that it risks letting the Tories in again? God help us if so, the UK is basically finished if Sunak gets in again and we are subject to 4-5 more years of crumbling public services, xenophobic nationalism and anti-"woke" politics.

 

[Gloster]

What do people make of this Angela Rayner controversy, something to do with her selling her council house?

All over the Mail front page.

Is there something in it? Should Starmer suspend her while the investigation is taking place?

Is there a risk that this is a big enough deal that it could let the Tories in again? God help us if so, the UK is basically finished if Sunak gets in again and we are subject to 4-5 more years of crumbling public services, xenophobic nationalism and anti "woke" politics.

I don’t think that she is dishonest in any way, but there is always a possibility that the she has misunderstood some of the rules, for which she will be crucified (how appropriate a comment today). However, I would think that she has probably got someone to check the situation before she made any statements and it will eventually prove to be nothing at all. But it gives the Hate Mail and others a chance to throw as much dirt as possible at her and to bring up Beergate, which was nothing at all, in the hope that some people will think all MPs are the same. And it takes attention away from whatever scandal the Conservatives are currently enmired in.

 

[brad465]

This does currently have the look of "Beergate 2", a potential wrongdoing by a senior Labour MP, who was investigated by the police, cleared, then a local election campaign comes around, the Mail et al. ram it down everyone's throats, then presumably after purdah it's announced they're being investigated again.

 

[nw1]

This does currently have the look of "Beergate 2", a potential wrongdoing by a senior Labour MP, who was investigated by the police, cleared, then a local election campaign comes around, the Mail et al. ram it down everyone's throats, then presumably after purdah it's announced they're being investigated again.

I guess the Mail are preaching to the converted though. Presumably few if any Mail readers would even consider voting Labour.

 

[JamesT]

This does currently have the look of "Beergate 2", a potential wrongdoing by a senior Labour MP, who was investigated by the police, cleared, then a local election campaign comes around, the Mail et al. ram it down everyone's throats, then presumably after purdah it's announced they're being investigated again.

As I understood it, the police had previously decided not to investigate, so from that point of view she hasn't been cleared. It's been announced they're reconsidering that decision, but haven't said they definitely will.

It smells very much like the expenses scandal, where MPs flipped which house was their primary for personal gain.

I doubt it will change the overall result of the election, but it's not a good look when Labour are going after the Tories for corruption to have someone apparently fiddling their taxes. Though as Deputy Leader is elected by the members, I don't think there's anything Kier can do directly.

 

[baza585]

What do people make of this Angela Rayner controversy, something to do with her selling her council house?

All over the Mail front page.

Is there something in it? Should Starmer suspend her while the investigation is taking place?

Is there a risk that this is a big enough deal that it risks letting the Tories in again? God help us if so, the UK is basically finished if Sunak gets in again and we are subject to 4-5 more years of crumbling public services, xenophobic nationalism and anti-"woke" politics.

Rayner could easily kill the story by stating

This is where I lived during the period in question
This is where I was registered for voting

She hasn't, which suggests there is an issue either in terms of tax or electoral misrepresentation or both.

The most worrying thing is that she is not bright enough to have avoided these on ious pitfalls, which doesn't bode well for when she is in government..

 

[simonw]

As I understood it, the police had previously decided not to investigate, so from that point of view she hasn't been cleared. It's been announced they're reconsidering that decision, but haven't said they definitely will.

It smells very much like the expenses scandal, where MPs flipped which house was their primary for personal gain.

I doubt it will change the overall result of the election, but it's not a good look when Labour are going after the Tories for corruption to have someone apparently fiddling their taxes. Though as Deputy Leader is elected by the members, I don't think there's anything Kier can do directly.

As it's a tax issue, surely it is for HMRC to investigate and decide whether tax was due? I'm not sure why the police would get involved before HMRC have investigated.

 

[JamesT]

As it's a tax issue, surely it is for HMRC to investigate and decide whether tax was due? I'm not sure why the police would get involved before HMRC have investigated.

As well as the tax, which a previous story in the Mail suggested is being investigated by HMRC, there’s relatedly an allegation that she put down the wrong address on the electoral roll. Though whether tax was due isn’t really the issue, it’s potentially fraud through making misleading statements. Though that may still be a matter for HMRC as it relates to tax,

 

[Thirteen]

Labour won't lose the election because of Angela Rayner, that's a daft thing to even consider.

 

[Yew]

Why do I get the feeling that the Daily Mail journalists aren't going through the tax affairs of Conservative politicians with such as fine-toothed comb?

 

[Enthusiast]

I don’t think that she is dishonest in any way, but there is always a possibility that the she has misunderstood some of the rules,...

Depends on your interpretation of "dishonest", I suppose.

As I understand it (and this is information gained from sources other than the Daily Mail) she bought her former council house in 2007 under the "Right to Buy" scheme. She got married in 2010 and, again as far as I can see, she lived at her husband's address thereafter. She sold the house in 2015 making a profit of some £48k. Married couples are only granted Capital Gains Tax exemption on one property (termed their "only or main residence"). Any other that either or both of them owns is subject to CGT if sold. It is hard to see, therefore, how CGT should not have been due on the sale but she says she received tax advice on the matter, so her misunderstanding the rules should not be an issue .

There is also the allegation that she registered to vote at her address whilst living at her husband's (against electoral law). As well as that there is the added complication that she is alleged to have claimed "single person's allowance" for the Council Tax on her house (where she was said to be living after her marriage) when her brother was living there as well.

Of course these are only allegations and I have no objection to anybody seeking to reduce their tax liabilities to the absolute minimum (in fact I believe everybody has a duty to do so). But it is difficult to understand somebody who would call for the summary beheading on Tower Green of any "Tory Scum" who were subject to such allegations, allowing herself to be dragged into a similar situation for the sake of a few grand in tax.

"Flipping" properties for various reasons is not the sole preserve of Tories, it seems.

 

[simonw]

As well as the tax, which a previous story in the Mail suggested is being investigated by HMRC, there’s relatedly an allegation that she put down the wrong address on the electoral roll. Though whether tax was due isn’t really the issue, it’s potentially fraud through making misleading statements. Though that may still be a matter for HMRC as it relates to tax,

I doubt a prosecution for registering at 'the wrong' address would pass the cps test of being in the public interest. I wonder how accurate any electoral roll is.

 

[baza585]

I doubt a prosecution for registering at 'the wrong' address would pass the cps test of being in the public interest. I wonder how accurate any electoral roll is.

What makes you say that? Prospective deputy prime minister lies about where she was living.

Explains why she was against voter ID though......

 

[Yew]

Explains why she was against voter ID though......

Of course, not for any of the good reasons to be against voter ID, but because of an easily fixable administrative error.

 

[simonw]

What makes you say that? Prospective deputy prime minister lies about where she was living.

Explains why she was against voter ID though......

How does it explain why she was against voter id?. She could just attend the polling station she was registered at with a passport.

 

[baza585]

How does it explain why she was against voter id?. She could just attend the polling station she was registered at with a passport.

Yes I realise that. Sorry my attempt to point out the irony of her position was lost on you.

 

[Thirteen]

Depends on your interpretation of "dishonest", I suppose.

As I understand it (and this is information gained from sources other than the Daily Mail) she bought her former council house in 2007 under the "Right to Buy" scheme. She got married in 2010 and, again as far as I can see, she lived at her husband's address thereafter. She sold the house in 2015 making a profit of some £48k. Married couples are only granted Capital Gains Tax exemption on one property (termed their "only or main residence"). Any other that either or both of them owns is subject to CGT if sold. It is hard to see, therefore, how CGT should not have been due on the sale but she says she received tax advice on the matter, so her misunderstanding the rules should not be an issue .

There is also the allegation that she registered to vote at her address whilst living at her husband's (against electoral law). As well as that there is the added complication that she is alleged to have claimed "single person's allowance" for the Council Tax on her house (where she was said to be living after her marriage) when her brother was living there as well.

Of course these are only allegations and I have no objection to anybody seeking to reduce their tax liabilities to the absolute minimum (in fact I believe everybody has a duty to do so). But it is difficult to understand somebody who would call for the summary beheading on Tower Green of any "Tory Scum" who were subject to such allegations, allowing herself to be dragged into a similar situation for the sake of a few grand in tax.

"Flipping" properties for various reasons is not the sole preserve of Tories, it seems.

If this happened before she became a MP then it's not going to see her sacked by Keir Starmer. My guess is that she'll pay any taxed owed and the matter will be forgotten about.

 

[stibz]

We don't want torries or Labour, all a bunch of liars out for self and party and F the people, like they say, both cheeks of the same arse, nothing will change. you will see. But who to govern is the difficult question, neither are capable.

 

[nw1]

We don't want torries or Labour, all a bunch of liars out for self and party and F the people, like they say, both cheeks of the same arse, nothing will change. you will see. But who to govern is the difficult question, neither are capable.

So who do you want?

Are you left-wing, liberal, economically conservative, and/or socially conservative, in outlook? Or are you middle-of-the-road? Rhetorical question - please don't necessarily answer!

Depending on your answer, one party is likely to be better than the other.

For the left and liberals, Labour are clearly better.
For social conservatives, the Tories are clearly better.
For economic conservatives, it could be either, to be fair. Labour will manage the economy better but the Tories will probably implement lower taxes.
And if you're middle-of-the-road, arguably Labour would be the preferred choice simply due to the incompetence of the Tories and the likelihood that they're further from the centre than Labour - plus Labour are arguably far more pragmatic and less reactionary.