Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

CXRAndy

Epic Member
 
It was undoubtedly a political appointment probably based on Mandelson knowing how to handle Trump with the Epstein connection a known. But the depth of the sleaze would not have been known at the time.

That. Exactly.

Mandy was known to be able to work with Trump and his EU Commissioner role as a trade negotiator meant he was well equipped for trying to tie up a UK/US deal.

Asked if there was anything in his past that might bite his or the PMs bum he lied or at the very least was economical with the truth.

He was known to be a risk but assessed as a risk worth taking.

Epstein related disclosures in the States revealed the relationship was both longer and deeper than he'd admitted.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
If 6 million are better off on benefits* there's something very wrong with the relationship between earnings and living costs.

*Spoiler; they're not.

Don’t know about the 6 million, but, there are many* who are.

* I do not believe that anyone knows how many

As with many things, politically, it is the perception which counts, not the facts.
 

swee'pea99

New Member
The focus needs to be on equitable distribution of that GDP.
Whereas...

Screenshot 2026-02-04 18.45.48.png
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
From PE facts and figures, who to believe?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6816.jpeg
    IMG_6816.jpeg
    153.3 KB · Views: 0

pubrunner

New Member
Just been watching Parliament on TV.

Starter just praying the Met charge Mandleson .... with anything, possibly stepping on the cracks in the pavement or wearing hilariously bad Y fronts !

Anything so he can say "the matter is subjudice so I can't talk about it".
 

Dorset Boy

Active Member
Focus needs to be equitable distribution to those who/'ve actively contribute to GDP

So what about those unable to contribute due to their health or genetic conditions they were born with?
Do you just chuck them on your bonfire?

The wealth divide has grown massively over the last 25 - 30 years, with the ultra rich having become much, much richer compared to average people, let alone the poor. The mega rich used, once upon a time, be philanthopists, now their sole aim seems to be to increase the number of noughts at the end of the wealth summary, whilst giving nothing back to society.

Really once you get to about £100m, you cannot spend the income it generates (about £70,000 per day), so if you are a billionaire, why not put a few 100 mill back in to wider society?
 
Top Bottom