Wow. What a resignation statement from Labour MP Rosie Duffield.

Greed and Power, the symbol of the present Labour Party administration. Soon it could be "Sponsor on MP". To sponsor the PM = £100k; Chancellor £75k; DPM = £50; DS = £40k. Others on request/negotiation.

Self-interests for these above-average income earners and Labour political scums. They are abhorrent, and out-of-touch with ordinary UK citizens esp the grass root Labour Party supporters and activists.

This is something no Labour Party supporter could have envisaged. Mr John Smith and Mr James Callaghan will turn-in-their grave because of this abhorrent behaviour from the senior governing Labour Party ministers.

Shame! Shame! Shame! I'd like these political scums to resign.

if sur keer goes the substitute not looking promising tbf

The next Tory leader is on £75k already so not a great start , they'll need 20yrs to catch Boris & Co up though   

It may be so, and I can accept that. On the flipside, I and some others, will be tempted to ask Sir Shameless and Lady Shameless in public, if presented with the opportunity, which bit of their attire is sponsored or paid for by a Labour donor? These Labour Party political scums cannot and must not exist let alone leading the Labour Party regardless.Anyway, Sir Shameless was parachuted into the Labour Party for a senior post - his political experience was minimalist. Now, Sir Shameless is returning the favour by promoting a sibling of Sue Gray into a strategic and important post; nepotism before experience and hard graft; cancer breeding cancer! 

It's wholly against the ethics and ethos of the Labour Party. It's utter scandalous and repugnant senior members of the Labour Party have been enriching their own nests citing the freebies were declared and allowed, but nothing about decency, respectability, perceptions and public duties/figures.

These political scums can afford to pay for the personal freebies!

you might want to pace yourself until 2029

Who could forget Ms Duffield getting up to ask a question in the house and being booed by her own side whilst being cheered by the party opposite? Her crime being knowing what a woman is (and isn't).

Rosie Duffield appears to be a very sensible woman.
Starmer's problem is not so much corruption as such as that his political antenna is poor. He is essentially a technocrat with no real ideological base.

The public knew Bojo was a buffoon; he was repeatedly sacked from his jobs. He's never tried to convince the voting public he was squeaky clean; he was a clown alright.

In contrast, the boring, charisma-less Sir Shameless preached accountability and respectability in public life and executing public duties. But, within six months Sir Shameless has been proven the "sh1test" of the lot - a lowlife indulging in personal enrichments; his subordinates followed suit in earnest as a result. The can of worms in the senior Labour Party is beyond reparation, and should be binned or ostracised as their self-interest and behaviour are totally against the principles of what the Labour Party was founded on.

These self-ingratiating, nepotic and outrageous behaviour of these senior Labour Party ministers should be history. I for one cannot vote for any of them or the Labour Party even if the Conservatives are at basement level.

Johnson could have been a great PM. His instincts were right about covid, but he had weaknesses of his own and it brought about his rapid downfall. He's like a Gazza, Best or Higgins, talented enough not to have to try hard. But when he won the election landslide, he needed to actually try hard and did the opposite.

Starmer will never be a great leader, or even a competent one, and should never have been near it.

The Labour Party suffered all the ignominies of a 3rd world country eg a hiding from the Tories; an ultra-clueless socialist leader in Mr Corbyn; mostly incompetent Labour MPs; not trusted by UK voters; laughed-at in the world esp the EU.

Then a parachute appeared in the shape of Sir Shameless from the CPS. A boring but respected even though politically clueless; his legal qualities exceeded and camouflaged his inadequacies as a politician and leader.

As a result UK plc and its image are suffering. A leader that should never have been. The face fits, but void of ability and acumen for the job.

This thread reminds me of a Night Nurse vs Constitution Hill thread in that it'll go on forever and not one person will think any differently than when it all began.

It's refreshing to have an MP (Duffield) standing by her principles rather than blindly going along

with her party. Let's hope more of them have the moral backbone to do the same!

Hardly anyone easily changes their mind Hayden. Well, anyone that is bar Keir Starmer!

Starmer fortunate that the news is dominated by the Middle East.

Another time and this would be the lead story.

Starmer is not into women

& a massively sympathetic broadcast media

The wikipedia account of Baron Alli of Norbury's connections and contributions to the Labour

party and use of his apartment by Labour MPs is an interesting read.

Cider29 Sep 24 12:03Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 59,053 | Blogger: Cider's blog
Johnson could have been a great PM.

If you asked him heads or tails? - he'd want to use his 50/50 and probably then also ask the audience.

Norbury, which Norbury? Not the one in proximity of Thornton Heath or Croydon surely. If so, the pace is severely lacking taste and judgement, in my opinion.

Mavis from Coronation Street was more decisive.

You chopped my quote and left off the part that stated he had weaknesses of his own. Indecision was not one of them, but being swayed by different people was. Covid cost him Cummings, and he needed a central adviser like Cummings to keep him on track. Whatever you think of his politics, but with Cummings he took the party and the country from no majority and Brexit purgatory to a landslide majority. Nobody else alive in the UK could have done that apart from NF. And yep, completely blew it.

You will now see actual Labour MPs leaving the party and standing up for what they believe in. Those who want to put our Country first and not what they can get out of a Political career for themselves....that'll be just the one then!

I'm a Labour supporter, but I'd not vote for Mr Corbyn. Now, no vote for Sir Shameless and his greedy senior cabinet members either. My loss or the Labour Party gain?

Johnson won a landslide off the back of Brexit and Corbyn. For some strange reason people viewed hin as some sort lovable buffoon when in reality he was a total shambles. Starmer got his landslide off the back of Johnson and what followed.

The reality is we live in a 2 party state and the standard of politicians is at all time low. In a 2 party system, to win an election all you have to do is be slightly less sleazy, corrupt and incompetent than the opposition.

It takes a special amount of sleaziness, corruption and incompetence to lose a massive majority and your reputation that quickly as Boris did though.

Sorry for chopping your quote cider - but I'd maintain he is about as decisive as Mavis. Let's be honest, he didn't/couldn't decide if he was a Brexiteer or a Remainer until the night before -  and even them it was solely based on what might work out best for his own ambitions.

Sir Shameless won a sizeable majority without increasing the vote percentage for Labour. It was all tactical voting; Reform got the same percentage vote at the Liberals yet trailed them by 61 MPs (I think).

dd the period where he took over the party and country in crisis to the landslide was outstanding politics. but we all know it went wrong from there. whether that was covid alone, or coincidental we'll never know. covid finished off nearly all politicians eventually.

That the point tm, between winning the party leadership and the massive majority there was zero indecision. quite the opposite, single minded and driven. he came across as indecisive after booting Cummings for sure. that's why in my view the weakness is not indecision, but vulnerable to being pushed around by different people.

including his missus.

Must admit i felt sorry for Dilyn , the way they prioritized Iran and quarantine decisions over its welfare was a disgrace   

salmon spray Joined: 10 Jan 07
Replies: 5566529 Sep 24 11:49
 
He is essentially a technocrat with no real ideological base


specious tripe from fishface, as usual. fatcher was an ideologue, like corbyn. what is required is a pragmatist

Imp. Yes that is the Norbury he's from.

mitolo29 Sep 24 13:47Joined: 13 Apr 21 | Topic/replies: 5,106 | Blogger: mitolo's blog
what is required is a pragmatist

Even on his third bottle, mitolo speaks sense. Preferably an honest & competent pragmatist (imo).

Sadly, party politics doesn't really permit pragmatism - all slaves to an ideology.

Guy is terrible. But foreign policy worse. We would be firing missiles toward Moscow if he had his way.

steady on. only been up an hour. although now you mention it

i do have a nice bottle of pinot gris that goes well with the big bag of s&m cheesy poofs im about to open

Apparently Orange man bad is an "idiot" I mean, negotiating for the War to end and bringing about peace is just idiotic!

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362549949112

mitolo just likes to contradict anything I say and be abusive with it.
I suspect he's an old foe from years ago when I was admittedly slightly less mellow.

fishface-i dont like to contradict you but i do because you are wrelentlessly rong, thats all. and i cant resist messing about with forum monikers. ask waste management

you aint an old foe. you barely register. i dont like your putin-apologism, which was evident from day one

and talk of which, putins no 1 cheerleader and g1 conspiracy mug whopping piccaninny has turned up with some more loonytube vids. he must spend his life on the interweb looking for putins propaganda

i do have a nice bottle of pinot gris that goes well with the big bag of s&m cheesy poofs im about to open

reminds me of the old joke about the bloke who goes to see his dr because his d1ck has turned orange

Norbury used to be a dump. It's next to Thornton Heath which is still a dump and infested with night crimes. Now, some bits of Norbury eg those close to A205 (S Circular) and close to West Dulwich and Dulwich Village are much better. These have a London postcode; the rest closer to Thornton Heath are no better than average.

The inhabitants of Norbury are mainly foreigners eg mainly South Asians, and Caribbeans.

yes. i do have to cleans me digits post-nosh. shows how wholesome they must be. 100% pure and natural free-range tartrazine msg and sodium nitrate

Now Cracklin Rosie can sit back and enjoy the next five years splurging the £455k she will receive courtesy of defrauding the Canterbury electorate who have been hoodwinked into thinking they were electing a Labour MP!

^^If my MP had done the same as Ms Rosie I'd back her stance. What PM Sir Shameless and Lady Shameless did were offensive, disrespectful and greedy.

The country needs leaders who can achieve reforms to put it back on its feet . That will be boring ,unpopular,  and pretty painful.
The people who use the word " boring " as a negative criticism and glory in " ideology " cannot be expected to sort out a whelk stall , let alone the s,,t storm we have been left in by the worst government ever.
Johnson wasn't a leader , neither was he a political operator, he was a useless prat .

To the op

They had to have a 2 child cap,cos some people were breeding for money,and the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it.

The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices,

80% of people in this country don’t pay in enough for what they’ve had out,to then cry over 300 quid is laughable.

Agree with last two posts   

Should have been means tested from the outset.

They whinged when the Politics forum was shut.

They miss the point entirely, Hayden. Starmer and Richard are putting spending up! We already spend billions more than is raked in by excessive taxation. If they were planning on cutting actual money going down the gurgler like nut zero and foreign aid, across the board, funding never ending wars I could get on board with it. Withdrawing the winter fuel payment, something he was vehemently against when in oppo saves no money, as they now have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of PC claims to process, and if people qualify it's a lot more than the £300 wfp.

fascist

George , the vaccine was safe ffs

Rosie would be a gorgeous lass without the facial warts.
Why did she even stand for Labour at the last election?
They are a party for sick deviants who believe that a man can magically become a woman by wearing panties and a dress. She doesn't believe in this drivel.
I think we all know what she means when she says that Two Tier Free Gear Kier has a 'problem with women'......

Why wouldn't she have stood for Labour? The crux of her disatisfaction is Starmer taking the freebies. That story has only broken after the election. You are better off questioning Starmer's beliefs given they are miles away from the party she's talking about. The further shame is that as far as I know no other Labour MP has supported her stance, not even the few old lefties who have been banished to the very fringe of the party.

comingupthehill29 Sep 24 19:56Joined: 10 Jul 05 | Topic/replies: 6,361 | Blogger: comingupthehill's blog
To the op

They had to have a 2 child cap,cos some people were breeding for money,and the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it.

The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices,

80% of people in this country don’t pay in enough for what they’ve had out,to then cry over 300 quid is laughable.

Don't really know why you have directed this at me, as my OP was just reposting what the Labour MP had said, and how refreshing it was for an MP to express honestly what she and many of her constituents feel.

But as you called me, Yes some people probably do breed for more handouts, if already on benefits but percentage wise i'd have thought would be quite low as these extra child benefits cease once the child is 18 anyway. What averagely normal people
want a load of screaming kids around their necks for years and years, not me for definite. I'd have thought 2 kids was enough for most people, 3 at a push, but remember years ago familys had 6/8 or more children before proper contraception and somehow managed without state support.

Your 2nd point i think is wrong, the pittance of fuel payments is right.the poorest still get it,the rest don’t need it.

I don't need it as such but appreciate it, people on pension credit who will still get this money are already far better off than people who have worked hard all their lives and just have the state pension to live on which is about £221 a week for a single person. If you have around £3 a week less than this you can get Pension Credit which amounts to about another £36/40 a week in benefits i understand, plus if you're in council accomodation you'll get a rent reduction.

Do the train drivers need a £200 a week rise, not in my opinion, Do Junior Doctors need a 35% rise, rather excessive i'd say as once they are fully qualified they'll be earning about £44k-£63k and when become consultants the skys the limit.

The I’ve paid in all my life brigade,have had free schooling,10 operations,qualdruplied house prices,

Free schooling, what do you think you pay council tax and income tax for? Operations, yes i've had operations that saved my life and i'm very grateful but i did pay National Insurance contributions for 50 years so hardly free.
   As for house prices going up, how does that benefit anyone, only benefits your children when your dead who inherit more money than they would have is prices were stagnant since you bought it.

To all the old people ranting on about "I've paid in all me life..."

If your grasp of mathematics and knowledge of how Govt spending works is that poor, you probably shouldn't be on a betting exchange.

Do you think the government set aside your "contributions" and saved/invested them for your old age - or do you think they just lumped them in the general taxation pot and spent them almost immediately there and then  (on you!)?

Your "contributions" are long gone - your children and grandchildren are paying your pension. Fair enough but I wouldn't expect my children or grandchildren to subsidise my energy bill if I was already considerably better off than them.

You can argue about the threshold for sure - but sooner or later old people claiming benefits are gonna have to be means tested in the same way as everybody else claiming benefits always has been. Ponzi schemes by their very definition cannot go on forever.

Everyone knows it's a de facto ponzi scheme. But the contract is that you pay in over your working life and then the contract pays out.

However, millions of people get the payout without paying in. Including the floaters.

If you're advocating no welfare state, it would be superior to what we have now.

I do appreciate that's not gonna be a very popular post, on a forum largely populated by old people claiming benefits.

eg I've paid in for over 30 years, if I got kicked out of work tomorrow, I'd get about £80 a week. There are people right now that get so much money from working people, they ask if they can get a mortgage with UC income alone. If you don't believe me, take a look at the mse forum.

I'm advocating means testing everybody, regardless of their age Cider.

Nobody has a contract Cider - but if they did - part of the agreement (based on the level of contributions paid) would be that you die at about 70!

It's often the mental health card, but if they can type and post on a forum, they can work. The state allows them not to.

No an actual contract obviously, but the clue is in the name, national INSURANCE. Get rid of it and we can sort ourselves out, go for it.

Cider30 Sep 24 13:08Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 59,071 | Blogger: Cider's blog
However, millions of people get the payout without paying in

That's true - but even the "I've paid in all me life" merchants - the vast majority will take out far more than they ever paid in.

They have played their part in the social contract. Millions of people paid more in than they took out by the time they died, including my Dad. That's how 'insurance' works.

Everybody that comments claims to be one of the approx 20% that paid in more than they took out!

Given that most of those people will have died pretty young, I find that hard to believe.

For obvious reasons there is a gender divide and also for obvious reasons not many women post on here - but historically (for good reasons imo) the vast majority of women will take out way more than they ever paid in.

I suppose what annoys me most about the "I've paid in all my life" merchants is when they also start going on about how young people these days are so entitled.

Yeah, they're entitled to subsidise you living about 15 years longer than was ever anticipated.

You seem to have something against "old people" The Management? Cider is imo quite correct as it's a form of social contract, your National Health contributions, that whatever government spends it on, we have no choice in. What is a "merchant" who has worked all their life, what on earth is wrong with that? It's the people who have paid nothing into the system that you should be aiming your venom at.
   I'm sure like myself a lot on here are considered old now, but i've been posting on here regularly since 2004 when i was 50 and in full time employment. If your comment that :

If your grasp of mathematics and knowledge of how Govt spending works is that poor, you probably shouldn't be on a betting exchange. is aimed at me, then you are very misguided as i have spent my life backing as a punter and laying as a bookmaker since i was 18 yo. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about people you don't know and have never met.

So you think your children and grandchildren should pay more tax so that people that have hit a certain number in terms of their age should get £300 given to them every year, regardless of their wealth?

All benefits should be means tested for young people - but not for old people?

I've got nothing against old people - I am one! I don't think I should be handed £300 just because I am old, I think it should go to people that need it.

Why would you give away money to people based on an irrelevant criteria?

Why don't we give it to people with red hair or people that wear glasses - regardless of whether they need it or not?

It's not clear at all what alternative system you are advocating, TM.

The 'contract' is that you have your wages scalped for 45-50 years, and then you get some back at the end of it.

It's no longer correlated to what you put in. It was, with serps. But then the people who paid more in got more out. THEY did not like that and now the people who put nothing in get the same as those who put in tens if not hundreds of thousands.

I thought i made it clear above cider.

I'd be ok with means testing all benefits for all people - including redheads & shortsighted people. Not sure why wealthy old people should be any different from wealthy young people.

As the old folk like to say - age is just a number.

Why would you give away money to people based on an irrelevant criteria?

The discussion should be about thresholds.

You haven't read my earlier post properly, i said i don't need it, but people who already get Pension credit are better off than people who are on just a State pension. Also i have mentioned anything about young people at all, in future these young people may life to be 150 who knows. No one knows what the future holds or how old they will live to, as an old person yourself at what age would you like us to be bumped off?

I don't want to see anybody bumped off. Maybe you should read my posts.

I'm saying that giving free money to people that are already very wealthy seems daft.

Assuming you accept that - the issue is thresholds.

Asking for a friend - what about red hair and glasses, TM?

Base on the irrelevant criteria I have pulled out of a hat today - he gets £600.

Could be £900 but you haven't stated his date of birth.

2nd September 1962.

He's over 60!

The Management30 Sep 24 13:05Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 10,763 | Blogger: The Management's blog
To all the old people ranting on about "I've paid in all me life..."
The Management30 Sep 24 13:09Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 10,763 | Blogger: The Management's blog
I do appreciate that's not gonna be a very popular post, on a forum largely populated by old people claiming benefits.

Well it does appear from your recent posts that you don't like Old people.

I do agree that people who don't need it shouldn't get it but its only £6 a week, a bit different to the train drivers who probably don't need their £200 a week rise.
  I have a good mate who not long ago said to me, "I don't know how people manage on just a state pension." We had a discussion about this last week with him and 6 other pals, all well over retirement age, he was quick to ask me "Do you need the £300, i said no, but plenty of others do. Asking everyone of our group if they needed it, some said yes some said no, but he didn't add that at his grand age of 78 he's still working for himself and raking in a pretty penny.

I get what you are saying stew but also get TM's view, it is not a straightforward solution to get it right though, however TM has a valid point in giving money to those who clearly do not need it is silly just because of age based criteria.

On the other hand, no pensioner in the UK should have to worry about any sort of poverty let alone fuel, the NI contributions are in effect a pay as you go insurance e.g NHS and like an indemnity should provide a sum at the end to ensure a life rather than an existence for the few years remaining after working life?

Have Governments ever considered the original concept or like Road Tax which is spent on anything but roads, is it just a central pot to do as they please IYO?

stewarts rise30 Sep 24 14:40Joined: 22 Apr 04 | Topic/replies: 31,256 | Blogger: stewarts rise's blog
Well it does appear from your recent posts that you don't like Old people.

I've just stated a few facts - and then acknowledged that a lot of old people won't like them.

They are still facts.

I don't see how stating some facts translates into me not liking old people.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of old people who post on here don't claim benefits, just get their pensions to which they are entitled, a pension is not a benefit imo.

Yes, it's another well known fact that once people start claiming the state pension, they don't like to think of it as a benefit. There was even an (unsuccessful) petition in 2016 (I think) to stop that terminology from being used. It is defined as a benefit though.

I'd be ok with means testing all benefits for all people - including redheads & shortsighted people. Not sure why wealthy old people should be any different from wealthy young people.


Righty ho, so under your system the incentive is to never get a job. Or else you can work hard, pay lots of tax, so other people don't have to.

Pretty sure I didn't say that.

You appear to have allowed your own political agenda to let you leap ahead by quite a few assumptions.

funny how you appear to consider concepts like poor and wealthy as situations people themselves have no influence over. there's nothing I have done that someone else in the uk couldn't have done for themselves.

it's the inevitable outcome of your proposal. if you only get free money from other taxpayers if you are not wealthy, why would many people try to be wealthy? millions of people loved lockdown life and furlough, would have stayed on it forever if they could

As I have told you before Cider - every man for himself does not work on many levels. Not least because when it all comes crashing down, all you free-marketeers and "risk-takers" are straight to the front of the queue, looking for one of the government hand-outs that you apparently don't believe in! Too big to fail, anybody?

In your view what's the cut off. If someone is aged 68, what makes them poor enough to qualify for a £12K annual handout from other taxpayers?

Also - I think you need to familiarise yourself with how the benefit system works. You imply that people with no ambition/aspiration can sign on for life.

I think the only benefit you can claim without having to review/renew eligibility at intervals - is (ironically) the state pension

'sign on'

pip is the standard option. earn the minimum for uc. fake carers.

Cider should be able to supply all the data for benefits TM, he has claimed them for long enough, the one time he tried to explain his " Job" he stated that the aim of the company he worked for was " Not to make a profit ", work that out?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18486588.labour-mp-rosie-duffield-quits-...

As I said on the politics thread it's hardly comparable with the actions of the Prime Minister. I can only assume anyone digging up mud on Duffield thinks what Starmer did was correct. That's the issue now, not something that happened more than four years ago during Covid.

Is there a Statute Of Limitations on wrongdoing or sleaze IYO DD? Those who collect toilets should not "Stow Thrones" if the do not expect breakages imvho!!

Horseracing forum completely politicized now without doubt.

Politics and Religion cause nothing but arguments.

Gone are the days of racing debate on upcoming racing and turf history.

Political freds all over the place. Horseracing Forum finished.

Au Revoir mon amis.

No point complaining Mac, try a racing thread and get the same dross e,g Diff and Dumb, same old who have no clue whether politics or racing industry, mostly jockey slagging etc from losing moaners?

Cagliari and TM can always be found yapping away tbf….

can you ever tell the truth Quixall?

Cagliari and TM.....two cheeks of the same shi!!y arris.

Basil the same rectum with a low IQ and inability to comprehend adulthood!!! HTH

I put up a 7-1 yesterday as a very strong play, with workings and 2 people noticed (after it won). Horse racing debate predominately finished years ago, threads like this don't impact that.

Some on here now rarely talk about racing.