Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[baza585]

I was commenting on the posts up-thread which appear to suggest that certain Tories may have done something similar to what Rayner may or may not have done, but aren't getting anything like the same amount of attention.

One rule for one, one rule for another. If you're a Tory, the press give you an easier time.

I am only familiar with the Eleanor Laing example, but if they have all done what she did, there is absolutely no case to answer. She had a flat near Westminster which she designated as her main residence (quite reasonably as she no doubt spent most of her time living there given her job was there) and so there was no CGT to pay.

This story is a pathetic poorly executed attempt by the Mirror to support Rayner but it doesn't stand up to cursory inspection and the mainstream media have rightly ignored it.

If Rayner had kept her affairs in order, she too wouldn't have had a problem. The fact she didn't suggests to me she should be nowhere near power of any distinction, because she seems incapable of doing basic form filling that the rest of the population seem to be able to cope with.

She is an utter embarrassment to my party.

 

[najaB]

If Rayner had kept her affairs in order, she too wouldn't have had a problem. The fact she didn't suggests to me she should be nowhere near power of any distinction, because she seems incapable of doing basic form filling that the rest of the population seem to be able to cope with.

So you know, for a fact, that she didn't keep her affairs in order? Perhaps you could share the documentation as, to date, none has been made public.

Thanks.

 

[Busaholic]

Not if the police "took it further" but rather if it she is found to have committed a crime.

The police don't decide who has committed a crime, not yet at least, but the implication was that if the case was recommended to the CPS for prosecution then she'd resign at that stage. I'd suggest if that was the case my phraseology would be correct. Does anyone think she'd appear at Ashton, or wherever, Magistrates' Court to answer charges?

 

[najaB]

The police don't decide who has committed a crime, not yet at least, but the implication was that if the case was recommended to the CPS for prosecution then she'd resign at that stage.

The quote I've seen is "I will say as I did before - if I committed a criminal offence, I would of course do the right thing and step down". I don't think that the case being recommended to the CPS would meet that standard.

 

[baza585]

So you know, for a fact, that she didn't keep her affairs in order? Perhaps you could share the documentation as, to date, none has been made public.

Thanks.

Clearly if her documentation had been fully in order, the GM police would not be spending vast amounts of time and effort crawling all over it.

 

[Busaholic]

If Rayner had kept her affairs in order, she too wouldn't have had a problem. The fact she didn't suggests to me she should be nowhere near power of any distinction, because she seems incapable of doing basic form filling that the rest of the population seem to be able to cope with.

She is an utter embarrassment to my party.

Incredible! All the basic form filling that has been neglected or fiddled by dozens of MPs and Ministers of all parties over twenty years, all in their financial favour of course!!! I completely agree with Matthew Parris that so much criticism of her is because she's a mouthy woman from a grotty background and strident criticism of her is either class snobbery, the usual misogyny, or a mixture of both. I reserve particular distaste for those in the Labour party who attack her in public, but then it was only some of the dinosaurs on the left who've been ostracised, their equivalents on the right are making merry.

 

[The Ham]

I am only familiar with the Eleanor Laing example, but if they have all done what she did, there is absolutely no case to answer. She had a flat near Westminster which she designated as her main residence (quite reasonably as she no doubt spent most of her time living there given her job was there) and so there was no CGT to pay.

This story is a pathetic poorly executed attempt by the Mirror to support Rayner but it doesn't stand up to cursory inspection and the mainstream media have rightly ignored it.

If Rayner had kept her affairs in order, she too wouldn't have had a problem. The fact she didn't suggests to me she should be nowhere near power of any distinction, because she seems incapable of doing basic form filling that the rest of the population seem to be able to cope with.

She is an utter embarrassment to my party.

It's worth remembering that at the time she wasn't a MP, which whilst isn't an excuse if she's done something wrong, but does highlight that she probably had to go on the level of information she was provided by estate agents and the legal advice of those dealing with the sale of the house. Therefore there's always going to be a risk that the guidance may not be quite a good as I'd you sought advice from an expert on the matter.

Even those saying that she's not done it right are unable to define exactly what she owes, with values of up to £3,500 or around £1,500 being suggested. The reason being is that there's various factors which come into play.

What were her purchase costs, sales costs, the value of improvementd (but not maintenance costs), her income, how much capital gains allowance she could use from previous years, what her pay was and tax free allowance had been used.

Clearly if her documentation had been fully in order, the GM police would not be spending vast amounts of time and effort crawling all over it.

I suspect that they probably aren't looking at the Capital Gains element(s). As if they are their time spent of doing so would soon burn through £3,500, even at a chargeable rate of £25 per hour (and almost no business would work on that low a rate) and you'd burn through that in about 4 person weeks of work (assuming 35 hour working week).

 

[Busaholic]

Clearly if her documentation had been fully in order, the GM police would not be spending vast amounts of time and effort crawling all over it.

I'd like to know what the Police and Crime Commissioner for the area would think about vast amounts of time and effort being expended on this with all the major crimes that are happening. Are you quite sure you're in the right party?

 

[baza585]

I'd like to know what the Police and Crime Commissioner for the area would think about vast amounts of time and effort being expended on this with all the major crimes that are happening. Are you quite sure you're in the right party?

I can only assume that GMP feel there is sufficient evidence to warrant such an detailed investigation. I am sure Kate Green (GM deputy Mayor for Policing - AFAIK GM doesn't have a Police and Crime Commissioner like shire counties) is following it very closely, as will be Andy Burnham.

I've been a Labour Party member continuously since 1976 and was a member of an affiliated TU for 40 years. This doesn't mean I don't criticise the Party when they get things badly wrong.

 

[najaB]

Clearly if her documentation had been fully in order, the GM police would not be spending vast amounts of time and effort crawling all over it.

If it was any other police force I'd be inclined to agree. Note that they initially declined to investigate and only did so after pressure was put on them by James Daly to do so.

 

[birchesgreen]

I can only assume that GMP feel there is sufficient evidence to warrant such an detailed investigation. I am sure Kate Green (GM deputy Mayor for Policing - AFAIK GM doesn't have a Police and Crime Commissioner like shire counties) is following it very closely, as will be Andy Burnham.

I've been a Labour Party member continuously since 1976 and was a member of an affiliated TU for 40 years. This doesn't mean I don't criticise the Party when they get things badly wrong.

I think you are over reacting a bit on this issue comrade, though Rayner is a bit of a marmite person i know.

 

[DustyBin]

I completely agree with Matthew Parris that so much criticism of her is because she's a mouthy woman from a grotty background and strident criticism of her is either class snobbery, the usual misogyny, or a mixture of both.

There’ll no doubt be an element of this from some quarters - I’m not naive enough to believe otherwise(!) - but as I said previously, her main issue is that she’s a rent-a-gob who’s particularly vocal when others (well, Tories) are so much as suspected of similar misdemeanours.

Of course she may well be entirely innocent, but it’s no surprise that her opponents are rounding on her under the circumstances; she really ought to be squeaky clean.

 

[nw1]

completely agree with Matthew Parris that so much criticism of her is because she's a mouthy woman from a grotty background and strident criticism of her is either class snobbery, the usual misogyny, or a mixture of both.

I was going to say something similar, but not identical, yesterday but thought better of it in case it was too controversial.

But if an ex-Tory MP can say something, then so can I, perhaps.

So: I wonder whether one possible reason for a lot of the media constantly harping on about Rayner is because she is an example of a working-class, left-wing person. The right-wing media, and some politicians, appear to wish to concoct an imaginary view of the world whereby a majority of working-class people are right-wing, ardent supporters of Brexit and opponents of immigration, because it gives some moral credence to their own world-view. Perhaps Rayner proves them wrong and the right-wing media don't like that.

As I said, just a theory and not fact. But it is one possible theory.

If it was any other police force I'd be inclined to agree. Note that they initially declined to investigate and only did so after pressure was put on them by James Daly to do so.

Ah yes, Mr 105.

I wonder whether this will work for or against him; I see he is standing again at the forthcoming election.

 

[Enthusiast]

The quote I've seen is "I will say as I did before - if I committed a criminal offence, I would of course do the right thing and step down". I don't think that the case being recommended to the CPS would meet that standard.

Depends really.

If you pick up a bottle of vodka from Sainsbury's, put it under your coat and walk out without paying you have committed a criminal offence. Nobody may have witnessed it; your actions may not have been caught on CCTV; there may be no evidence to bring a prosecution against you. But you have, nonetheless, committed a criminal offence.

Of course Ms Rayner's affair is not so straightforward. But the case might be referred to the CPS, they decide there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution but go on to decide it is not in the public interest to do so. I have a suspicion that if push comes to shove, what Ms Rayner means when she says "...if I committed a criminal offence" is that she must have been convicted of one by a court.

 

[baza585]

I think you are over reacting a bit on this issue comrade, though Rayner is a bit of a marmite person i know.

Rayner is indeed a Marmite person. I doubt she appeals to anyone except ardent Labour supporters (and by no means all of them......). Calling Tories scum plays well to certain elements in the party but is unlikely to attract votes from those who voted for that party last time! Who are exactly the folk we need to attract to rid us of this appalling government.

She keeps playing the "working class single Mum with a disabled child" card, none of which is remotely relevant to her alleged misrepresentation of her living arrangements.

She attacks others on flimsy or no evidence but the impression this whole episode leaves is she thinks the "rules" don't apply to her. That's a very bad look for a prospective Deputy Prime Minister.

I'm not surprised Starmer has deliberately not seen her "evidence"; I feel he is actively hedging his bets on this.

But ultimately I don't think she is an asset to the party and I hope she goes.

 

[najaB]

If you pick up a bottle of vodka from Sainsbury's, put it under your coat and walk out without paying you have committed a criminal offence. Nobody may have witnessed it; your actions may not have been caught on CCTV; there may be no evidence to bring a prosecution against you. But you have, nonetheless, committed a criminal offence.

True. But that's because putting the vodka under your coat and walking out demonstrates mens rea - which is necessary to say a crime has been committed.

Where it comes to documentary crimes, misfiling the document is actus reus, but it doesn't constitute a crime unless you can also demonstrate that it was done intentionally.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Starmer's six pledges announced today don't mention rail, or transport, at all.
The nearest they get is "stick to tough spending rules" on the economy.
Listed at 0901 on the BBC live page:

Keir Starmer making pre-election speech in Thurrock, Essex

The Labour leader will outline the first steps he would take if his party wins the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

So "not a priority" again, then?
Understandable considering the issues they will face on election.

 

[Cross City]

Starmer's six pledges announced today don't mention rail, or transport, at all.
The nearest they get is "stick to tough spending rules" on the economy.
Listed at 0901 on the BBC live page:

Keir Starmer making pre-election speech in Thurrock, Essex

The Labour leader will outline the first steps he would take if his party wins the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

So "not a priority" again, then?
Understandable considering the issues they will face on election.

Very understandable and easily likeable pledges really. Rail transport comes far down the list of people's priorities really, especially after however long of managed decline of the UK's public services from the Conservatives.

Must say, this is a really slick event they're putting on.

 

[Kite159]

Starmer's six pledges announced today don't mention rail, or transport, at all.
The nearest they get is "stick to tough spending rules" on the economy.
Listed at 0901 on the BBC live page:

Keir Starmer making pre-election speech in Thurrock, Essex

The Labour leader will outline the first steps he would take if his party wins the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

So "not a priority" again, then?
Understandable considering the issues they will face on election.

How long before those 6 pledges are blasted into outer space with some new 'pledges' announced?

 

[najaB]

Starmer's six pledges announced today don't mention rail, or transport, at all.
The nearest they get is "stick to tough spending rules" on the economy.

To be fair, the pledges seem to be strategic rather than tactical.

 

[brad465]

How long before those 6 pledges are blasted into outer space with some new 'pledges' announced?

Depends how long the election takes to be called.

What I think should be stressed is these happen to be what they think swing voters most want, as these are the voters who have by far the biggest influence in elections, this is the group who get targeted strongest. They'll be plenty of other stuff planned as well.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For reference, these are the pledges (text taken from an email, so no link)

Step 1: Deliver economic stability with tough spending rules, so we can grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.

Step 2: Cut NHS waiting times with 40,000 more appointments each week, during evenings and weekends, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.

Step 3: Launch a new Border Security Command with hundreds of new specialist investigators and use counter-terror powers to smash the criminal boat gangs.

Step 4: Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

Step 5: Crack down on antisocial behaviour, with more neighbourhood police paid for by ending wasteful contracts, tough new penalties for offenders, and a new network of youth hubs.

Step 6: Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects to set children up for life, work and the future, paid for by ending tax breaks for private schools.

How long before those 6 pledges are blasted into outer space with some new 'pledges' announced?

I don't see any reason to doubt that Keir Starmer is sincere in aiming to carry out the pledges, so the new Labour Government will attempt to implement them. As for how far they might get... Setting up Great British Energy and a new Border Security Command are basically just setting up organisations, so no reason why those won't be done pretty quickly (although whether they have much impact is more debatable). I can imagine recruiting 6500 new teachers won't be that hard either, with a bit of money thrown at it. The other three pledges look to me much more aspirational and carry more risk that the Government will find them a lot harder to achieve than they think.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I see the non-dom taxation money has been spent again for about the 35th time. If I had a fiver for every time they'd spent that in one pledge or another just recently, I'd be able to retire and open my own preserved railway equipped with lots of lovely pacers, networkers and175s

Whilst no great supporter of private education, I'd be interested to see quite how the tax breaks crackdown on the sector would actually work in practise, I suspect they might find that there are far fewer loopholes that they can exploit in terms of cracking down on this, then they think they are and this comes from someone who is friendly with a fairly senior person at a private school

However, the very first thing that labour have said to me for the last God knows how long that even vaguely appeals is their pledge about youth hubs. Any party that is going to invest in young people services other than trying to regimentedly educate them In a classroom, for there is so much more to young people's development than simply stuffing maths and English into them, which in many cases is counterproductive is worth a listen in my book. It's also currently something that none of the political parties anywhere else on the spectrum are even thinking about other than when it comes to which budget to cut next. So this shift in policy is definitely a case of them finding a niche in the market
Other than that, though, I suspect that it's just more hot air from a leader who was past his sell-by date after about 6 months of being in the job and needs fairly urgent replacement as indeed do several other political party leaders just for the sake of balance and fairness

 

[telstarbox]

Who would you like to see leading the parties instead?

 

[Cross City]

Who would you like to see leading the parties instead?

Count Binface

 

[jfollows]

For reference, these are the pledges (text taken from an email, so no link)





I don't see any reason to doubt that Keir Starmer is sincere in aiming to carry out the pledges, so the new Labour Government will attempt to implement them. As for how far they might get... Setting up Great British Energy and a new Border Security Command are basically just setting up organisations, so no reason why those won't be done pretty quickly (although whether they have much impact is more debatable). I can imagine recruiting 6500 new teachers won't be that hard either, with a bit of money thrown at it. The other three pledges look to me much more aspirational and carry more risk that the Government will find them a lot harder to achieve than they think.

I don't believe in any of these pledges, Kier Starmer has form for making "pledges" and then going back on them.

He's not as bad as the Conservatives, who make all sorts of announcements to get immediate credit and to buy people off, and then quietly shelve them - but I think the problem is that they've tweaked up my cynicism immensely now.

Only one of Starmer's pledges actually has a metric, so he'll have the excuse for not meeting this one in his pocket already.

Some of the others are unremarkable and don't define what they will achieve anyway.

On the balance, I still want him to win the next election, but that's because of what he's not. The key test will be in what he does then.

I also want to see how this translates into a manifesto. To date, I don't think Labour has gone against its manifesto promises significantly, whereas the Conservative manifesto is just a means of getting some legislation through parliament on the back of it with reduced opposition.

Not being Conservative is good enough for him now. I know he is trying to buy the votes of a wide range of voters, but for me he's nowhere near radical enough. Where are important things like a total reform of the broken criminal justice system? Maybe Rory Stewart should sign up as a Labour MP for this? Where is a focus on inequality? Where is a reform of local government funding? And I don't like "windfall taxes".

 

[Yew]

I'm interested to see how "tough new spending rules" will deliver economic stability? How would tough spending rules helped us through Covid, or 2007? How would they have delivered economic stability when the oil price rose due to the Russian Invasion? The idea that domestic fiscal policy can singlehandedly insulate us from global financial events is farcial.

Secondly, why would we want our economy to remain stable in this zone of stagflaition; I'd rather see high growth and low interest rates.

 

[nw1]

Not being Conservative is good enough for him now. I know he is trying to buy the votes of a wide range of voters, but for me he's nowhere near radical enough. Where are important things like a total reform of the broken criminal justice system? Maybe Rory Stewart should sign up as a Labour MP for this? Where is a focus on inequality?

I wholly agree with the part I've quoted, and there are other matters that I'd like to see movement on too, which I won't mention here.

As you say, he is being ultra-cautious in order not to put off the people who switched to Johnson in 2019. Perhaps he's going too far though, in trying to win places which are naturally Conservative.

My hope is, that once in power, we will see movement on some of these other issues.

He does seem to be coming across more socially-conservative than let's say Blair, but that I guess is a function of the times we are living in (the socially-liberal mid-1990s versus the socially-conservative early 2020s).

I don't have a lot of enthusiasm myself either, but my dislike of the current Tory Party is so intense that I definitely want them to win. Though personally, a coalition with Lib Dems would be absolutely ideal.

I would certainly hope that a Labour government does recognise that we are not all social conservatives, and unlike the Tories, offer policies which please those of us who are socially more liberal.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think you've ultimately highlighted the floor in the plan here. The current incarnation of the labour party are still out of touch with quite a few of the key target voter groups including many of their own supporters and also those they're trying to win over
The question of who I'd like to see leader of different parties is not one for this thread and if I can be bothered at some point, I'll start a dedicated one for that purpose

 

[BrianW]

Love him or hate him, Blair (the last Labour General Election 'winner') recognised that without power you can change NOTHING. I'm not suggesting he lied. He undertook to stick to Conservative budgets! The 'Delivery Unit' ensured delivery. Campbell and Mandelson were effective.
Brown was a better Chancellor than PM, lacking the PR skills of his predecessor.
Kinnock, with good support from those too close to him, got affected by hubris at the Sheffield rally, 'all right, ... ad infinitum.
Arguably the 'wrong Miliband' wrote his own 'Edstone- poorly advised, lacking perception.
Corbyn had attractive policies; sadly, IIRC, 'the media' picked on Shadow Chancellor McDonnell's 'slip' late in the campaign in supporting the worthy but unbudgeted claim of the Waspie women. On such matters do elections turn.
Starmer's caution is very understandable, based on evidence; his Shadow Chancellor, shadow cabinet and recent recruits are behind him and on-message.
Rayner is his Prescott, attracting fire and appealing to parts Starmer cannot reach.
No time for infighting now.