Starmer's vision quest

[winjim]

Not about her getting mugged. About her pleading guilty to fraud.

But for me the issue is the PM refusing to answer questions he has no reason not to answer. He is probably just avoiding being embarrassed but we deserve leadership that can be honest and open and not just when it's convenient for them.

Ian

You get how dominos work, right?

 

[mjr]

Not about her getting mugged. About her pleading guilty to fraud.

But why? This is a spent conviction. I'm not seeing the scandal here. It's not like she lied about participating in illegal parties or has harassed an employee.

 

[Psamathe]

But why? This is a spent conviction. I'm not seeing the scandal here. It's not like she lied about participating in illegal parties or has harassed an employee.

Me neither - I can't see the scandal, just clarifying what I saw as what kicked this off.

My disappointment is Starmer not being open about what he is claiming as "new information". Maybe he's worried this new information might get to N Korea and jeopardise our national security ... or maybe he just doesn't want be be a bit embarrassed.

Edit: I suspect she saw her resignation is in her best interests or maybe as lower risk as she's ensured the story will fade quickly and she'll be able to return to Cabinet pretty quickly. It's minor such that she probably could have stayed but maybe in case Conservatives & Reform managed to keep it going long enough and she ended up resigning but after lots of noise then she'd have to wait longer for return.

Ian

 

[Mr Celine]

But why? This is a spent conviction. I'm not seeing the scandal here. It's not like she lied about participating in illegal parties or has harassed an employee.

Green, Fox and Stockheath did far worse but didn't feel obliged to resign.

 

[Psamathe]

But why? This is a spent conviction.

It does look increasingly daft.Apparently she was told to resign by No 10 so, given that (as you say) it's spent, seems all based on bad advice, etc.) to me it looks like Starmer throwing her under a bus to protect his Mr Clean image.

Sources say UK transport secretary was advised by Keir Starmer’s chief of staff it would be best for her to resign

Multiple sources said Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, delivered the message to the UK transport secretary on Thursday night that it would be best for her to resign.
...
They said she had come fully clean to Starmer about the episode when he appointed her as shadow Northern Ireland secretary and he was very supportive of her at that point.

However, she did not declare it to the government when she became transport secretary, because she was asked only about unspent convictions.

She is understood to have spoken to Starmer on Thursday night before McSweeney made clear to her it was best for her to resign.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-10-over-possible-breach-of-ministerial-code)

So it was all declared but the declaration was not repeated when Starmer appointed her to Cabinet (because he had already been told).

Sort of "got her on a technicality" as she answered what was asked.

Starmer just wanting anything that might allow opposition to make noise, however unjustified.

Thing with leaders failing to show loyalty to and failing to back-up those in the team is it can backfire. Look at what happened to Johnson (given his track record for loyalty to others), the number of Trump ex employees who came out with all those revelations, etc.. Leaders would do well to remember, throw others "under the bus" but remember there will be times when you'll be wanting their support which might not be forthcoming.

Edit: And Labour are now trying to present it as how they did a good job throwing her out quickly

Louise Haigh’s exit dealt with quickly in contrast to Tories, says Labour minister
(fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/01/louise-haigh-transport-secretary-exit-pat-mcfadden)

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

Doesn't seem like a resigning offence, unless there's something we aren't being told. Sets the bar very low for what you should resign over. Perhaps it would have been different if there wasn't the donations debacle and Labour trying to be squeaky clean in the aftermath.

 

[cookiemonster]

Starmer will need to find his spine and pull his finger out pronto or we could see PM Farage in 2029.

https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/musks-100m-to-farage-will-break-our-democracy-starmer

 

[Psamathe]

Doesn't seem like a resigning offence, unless there's something we aren't being told. Sets the bar very low for what you should resign over

I see Ms Haigh administrative "shortcoming" as far more trivial than accepting many thousands of pounds of gifts from an organisation actively lobbying Government against legislation being considered.

nb "shortcoming" with regard to Ms Haigh situation is probably a bit strong.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most parties have accepted donations from those with vested interests. It barely musters investigation these days.

 

[multitool]

Hello everybody.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Then I'll begin...

 

[Ian H]

Hello everybody.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Then I'll begin...

Careful! You might get an election.

 

[multitool]

Careful! You might get an election.

Contrary to what some here have convinced themselves, I wasn't especially enthusiastic about the incoming government beyond being delighted that it wasn't a Conservative one or a Conservative-Reform coalition. And I mean delighted.

What now? We will have to wait and see but I think I predicted a shaking of the money tree and that will be what happens. There is no way that Labour believe they can improve services through structural change despite what they say publically.

These are very turbulent times politically and really the loudest voices here are demonstrative of why this is the case. She'd deny it, of course, but what people like TheClaude want is a populist response not grounded in reality. There are plenty like her which is why Reform made significant ground whilst the two main parties' vote share dwindled. One of the most striking facts of the election was that whilst Labour retook the Red Wall, it's voters numbers decreased. This is bound to come back to haunt them in 5 years, and contrary to the views of some here it will have nothing to do with Starmer's stance on Gaza.

 

[C R]

One of the most striking facts of the election was that whilst Labour retook the Red Wall, it's voters numbers decreased. This is bound to come back to haunt them in 5 years, and contrary to the views of some here it will have nothing to do with Starmer's stance on Gaza.

You were saying the exact opposite when this was pointed out to you after the election.

 

[multitool]

You were saying the exact opposite when this was pointed out to you after the election.

The exact opposite of this would be:

"One of the least striking facts of the election was that whilst Labour didnt retake the Red Wall, it's voters numbers increased. This is bound to not come back to haunt them in 5 years, and exactly according to the views of some here it will have everything to do with Starmer's stance on Gaza."


I'm pretty sure I didn't say this.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Careful! You might get an election.

There are better forums than this if you are after an election.