Starmer's vision quest

[Stevo 666]

If I do will you see the error of your ways and repent?

Depends if I agree or not. Little clue - criticising or taking the mick out of someone who happen to be female isn't misogyny.

 

[Psamathe]

Well done guys! Another woman in a position of power has been forced to resign.

I don't see the relevance of her gender given it's about failure to pay due tax. Just as others (eg starmer) have tried to "defend" her because she's from working class background - totally irrelevant.

 

[spen666]

Evasion is wilful.

If you read Laurie Magnus's report she acted on advice that was caveated that further advice from an expert in that bit of the legal world where trusts, property and revenue deeming clauses overlap. She failed to do so and it was that failure that was a breach of the Ministerial Code.

Careless or a cock up but not wilful evasion.

Tax Evasion is unlawful - it is wilful
Tax avoidance is lawful, is also be wilful.

 

[Psamathe]

Lets hope that whoever get appointed replacing her looks a bit more carefully at the legislation she was pushing and removes some (all?) of the unintended consequences".

 

[spen666]

In 14 months in power - its never been a dull moment
Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff have had the party whip removed

Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – had their trade envoy roles removed.

Angela Rayner - resigned for breaching the ministerial code

Rushnara Ali -The homelessness minister resigned after it emerged tenants of a property she owns who had not had their lease renewed because she planned to sell the property had seen the same property back up for let with a substantial rent increase shortly afterwards.
Andrew Gwynne -Sacked as a health minister and suspended from the party after it emerged he had sent messages in which he said he hoped a pensioner who did not support him would die before the next set of elections, and made racist and sexist comments – including some about Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott.

Tulip Siddiq -The anti-corruption minister resigned over claims that her family ties to her aunt Sheikh Hasina – the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh accused of corruption – were harming the government.

Louise Haigh - Haigh resigned after it emerged she had pleaded guilty to a fraud offence after wrongly reporting a mobile phone stolen to the police. Haigh was told to resign by No 10 for a possible breach of the ministerial code.


The following resigned because they disagreed with Government policy/ decisions

Vicky Foxcroft -The Labour whip, responsible for ensuring discipline among the party’s MPs, herself resigned because she could not support the government’s welfare plans. Foxcroft, a shadow disability minister before the general election, said she would not be able to vote for cuts to disability payments.

Anneliese Dodds -The international development minister quit over Starmer’s decision to almost halve the international aid budget to pay for an increase in defence spending. Dodds had worked closely with the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell in the past and her presence by Starmer’s side had been seen by some as an indication he would not turn his back entirely on the left of the party.

i make that at least 14 Labour MPs who have either had issues with Government policy or been dealt with for behaviour. Pretty impressive in 14 months.

 

[spen666]

Lets hope that whoever get appointed replacing her looks a bit more carefully at the legislation she was pushing and removes some (all?) of the unintended consequences".

They are politicians. They will probably look to grant immunity to themselves ( that applies irrespective of the colour of the rosette the person is wearing. The Tories as well as Labour or any of the other lunatics in Westminster

 

[Rusty Nails]

They are politicians. They will probably look to grant immunity to themselves ( that applies irrespective of the colour of the rosette the person is wearing. The Tories as well as Labour or any of the other lunatics in Westminster

I believe that too often politicians of all persuasions are brought down by the sense of entitlement, or thinking they do not have the need to adhere to the same cumbersome restrictions as the hoi polloi, that comes with their exalted positions, rather than by monetary greed.
It is not restricted to the Tories or Labour but will happen to Reform, Lib-Dems or any party that gains power.

 

[Pross]

A good news day.

Where are all the lefties who were saying she'd done nothing wrong and it was all about snobbery, misogyny etc?

Is it good news for you? She's probably the most divisive high profile Labour politician and, had she not gone, it would have been far more toxic for Labour and therefore (presumably) better in your eyes. She probably get replaced by someone far more bland and inoffensive.

 

[CXRAndy]

Another adviser resigned today from Rachel's team. Irreconcilable differences in policy

 

[spen666]

The Contest to be the new Labour Deputy PM should be an intriguing affair:

1. Who will put themselves forward?
2. Will the members return an ally of Starmer or someone who is more left of centre?
3. Will the campaign be run in a friendly manner or be full of vitriol and harmful to future party cohesion?

 

[Psamathe]

Is it good news for you? She's probably the most divisive high profile Labour politician and, had she not gone, it would have been far more toxic for Labour and therefore (presumably) better in your eyes. She probably get replaced by someone far more bland and inoffensive.

But also about the legislation she was creating. She was well regarded by Labour MPs so most were blindly accepting her proposals which in part were not well considered. Different people will view the legislation she was pursuing differently but personal view is that Workers Rights are important and improved protections are important but what she has been pursuing includes a lot of unintended concequences that could have negative impacts on some groups of workers. The protections are important, just that she hasn't thoroughly considered all aspects, maybe as she doesn't have the business experience and isn't good at listening to others. Similarly Planning changes are/were being done in a far too single minded manner removing many protections on our environment for no real benefit eg Labour's target 1.5m homes yet as of June 2025 there were already 1.4m polts that already have granted planning permission - the planning changes are for the benefit of developers not to provide the homes the country needs.

 

[icowden]

i make that at least 14 Labour MPs who have either had issues with Government policy or been dealt with for behaviour. Pretty impressive in 14 months.

Not really. Boris managed 11 in 24 hours.

 

[Psamathe]

i make that at least 14 Labour MPs who have either had issues with Government policy or been dealt with for behaviour. Pretty impressive in 14 months.

Not really. Boris managed 11 in 24 hours.

But disappointing (both parties) as to me it highlights how authoritarian our legislature has become. A constituency MP is elected to represent their consituents not to be lobby fodder for a party leader (who most of the electorate have had no say in their appointment).

I'd far rather a Commons where MPs debate issues freely rather than having their arms twisted to do the leader's bidding under threat of party expulsion if they vote in their constituents' interests where that differs from the leadership's ideology/policy.

Different views within a party should be treated as an asset rather than something that needs to be stamped-out.

 

[Pross]

But also about the legislation she was creating. She was well regarded by Labour MPs so most were blindly accepting her proposals which in part were not well considered. Different people will view the legislation she was pursuing differently but personal view is that Workers Rights are important and improved protections are important but what she has been pursuing includes a lot of unintended concequences that could have negative impacts on some groups of workers. The protections are important, just that she hasn't thoroughly considered all aspects, maybe as she doesn't have the business experience and isn't good at listening to others. Similarly Planning changes are/were being done in a far too single minded manner removing many protections on our environment for no real benefit eg Labour's target 1.5m homes yet as of June 2025 there were already 1.4m polts that already have granted planning permission - the planning changes are for the benefit of developers not to provide the homes the country needs.

Some of those planning changes are things needed to enable those consented plots to be built out. Contrary to popular belief (including among some wannabee developers) planning is only a stepping stone and there are still loads of blockages before you get to start digging holes. Developers don't generally spend millions on land then hundreds of thousands on fees to leave the land empty.

 

[Psamathe]

Some of those planning changes are things needed to enable those consented plots to be built out. Contrary to popular belief (including among some wannabee developers) planning is only a stepping stone and there are still loads of blockages before you get to start digging holes. Developers don't generally spend millions on land then hundreds of thousands on fees to leave the land empty.

Like environmental protections. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. 41% of our plant and animal species have declined in abundance since 1970, and this decline is accelerating. 1 in 4 of British mammals are now threatened with extinction in the UK. 31% of Great Britain’s amphibian and reptile species are threatened with risk of extinction.

The list of our environmental protection failures is extensive yet the planning proposals are making things a lot worse - hence their being opposed by most of the wildlife organisations.

It is possible to protect our environment and build houses/developments but it needs to be properly thought through not bulldozed by people without a care for the damage they are doing (probably not deliberately, just they haven't the experience nor concern over detail to think things through properly).

I wasn't saying the legislation Rayner was creating was all wrong, just that it needed more consideration to adjust the more damaging/unintended consequences she hadn't bothered considering.