Actually probably more like the robber is about to go to the bank, sees the police then decides not to rob it and going forward chooses never to rob again and redeems himself by doing charity work unlike boris who has chosen to rob the bank a few times and then become police commissioner
If you get a chance click the link to the article I posted at #68058 Col. For the record I think the story, from the archetypal ‘liberal’ US publication The Atlantic uses too many right wing illustrations of collective narcissism for my liking, the thinking applies to lots of groups - including quite ‘liberal’ ones. But it’s an interesting take on this ‘We are right so the rest of you are evil’ position. I can’t see myself ever voting at national level again. The relatively few times I have in the past I’ve regretted it pretty sharply.
Nice try, Bobby. Except that (a) Starmer was prevented from continuing with his consultancy contract when third parties pointed out he had a conflict of interest, and (b) the reason Starmer decided against pursing such contracts later was because he had party leadership ambitions, and then became leader. So you can shelve the violins and the charity work!
Will do. The "we are right so the rest of you are evil" position is ripping us apart imo and will lead to more and more attacks on public figures etc. It must change.
You taking me off ignore now then, Col? The polarisation in this country didn't start with Brexit, but Brexit took it to extremes and there's no sign of anyone admitting that they were wrong on the issue or changing their views, despite the fact that it's been an even greater disaster than 'Project Fear' predicted. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?
Because Starmer ducked out of a gig where he has a proven expertise when a conflict of interest arose. To try and conflate that with the likes of Paterson who blatantly abused his position is poor, IMO.
A Shy Tory Party for those who know this Conservative Party are ****ing terrible people but will always find some random reason to dislike the current Labour Party a little bit more could probably be a real force.
I've never related it to Paterson. It was a reference to a post where MP's consultancy contracts were listed, most of whom were Tory, and the Lib Dem leader. Are you saying that you approve of consultancy contracts where an MP has proven expertise? Would you have approved of Starmer taking the Mischon de Reya role?
Im in a similar boat Col, cant see who i could/would vote for. All i do know is that enough is enough with this current lot. They have dragged us into gutter politics. There must be some tories who can actually take the job as PM seriously. Unfortunately most were replaced for nodding yes people.
What annoys you more mate, someone found to have broken the rules and then an attempted cover up or someone who didnt break the rules after being warned of the potential rule breaking?
What you should have said Goldy was its like a bank robber planning a heist but being told it was illegal and wrong to do so. He decides to then not rob the bank. Thats better hey
I have always voted at every opportunity and will continue to do so. The system is far from perfect but I don't get the, 'none of what's on offer represents what I want to see, therefore I'm not going to bother' attitude. Surely it's better to vote for whatever candidate or party comes closest to representing your views?
If it doesn’t create a conflict of interest and it’s being done outside of their day job hours, whatever those are, go for it. A ban on second jobs entirely is a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMO and deflects away from the real issue of Tories lining each others’ pockets at our expense.
First, Starmer wasn't warned of the conflict of interest. He's a lawyer - if he doesn't understand a conflict, no one does. He was shamed into dropping the consultancy work when a light was shone it by the Tories. So he gets no praise here. He was caught. Second, I assume you're referring to Paterson on the attempted cover up. He didn't. The standards committee found he had breached the rules, but he didn't try to cover this up. His argument was that what he did was not a breach of the rules.
So we are agreed, Starmer didnt do anything. Paterson did and the Tory party attempted to cover it up. Sorted.
Ok, that's clear. You have no problem with MP's having second jobs, and have no issue with the list of (mostly) Tories with such contracts, posted by Strolls at #68015.
