I've just heard fraud from the news. Is claiming for a loss and then unclaiming what you claimed for when you find it not classed as fraud?
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Boris is as bad if not worse but whether I criticised him at the time is irrelevant. I've never voted Tory in my life, I've said that on here many times. People think the "what about the Tories?" question is some sort of retort but it means nothing to me. I can't think of any issue when they were in government that I've defended them for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxy1kp73y9o
Minister Louise Haigh quits after fraud offence revealed
Firstly I didn't say you voted Labour, I said you were a Labour fan so don't put words zzzzzzzzzzz I can't be bothered pursuing that one, just read the post properly.
Whatever Louise Haigh's explanation was, she was found guilty of fraud for which, as you say, she got a conditional discharge. That a CD is the absolute minimum punishment is irrelevant, it doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. If it was as innocent as you are suggesting, she would have been discharged. People sometimes only get community service for acts of violence but I doubt you would apply the same logic in that case. You are trivialising a criminal act of fraud, why? Whatever you have said about Blair etc, means nothing when in this case you are trying to excuse a convicted criminal.
Haigh declared her situation when appointed and Starmer knew she had a spent conviction (lack of judgement). Suddenly this "hardly crime of the century" offence is a resigning matter and the PM has accepted it, despite knowing about it all along (gutless, unless there is more to come). He also said, when attacking the Tories, "lawbreakers can't be lawmakers" (double standards). So Starmer's behaviour in this is questionable too. You would all have been sucking the blood out of this for weeks if they had been Tories.
I have said many times on here that I have never voted Tory, so the comment about "still sore after getting thrashed" is not just puerile but irrelevant. The "what about the Tories" jibe used regularly on here means nothing to me, it won't hurt my feelings but keep 'em coming if it makes you feel better. And the "desperate to find fault" comment is laughable after the last 14 years of anti Tory hysterics. But now, any criticism of this government is desperation. It's the hypocrisy in the government and on here that deserves calling out and why the original article was posted.
I could write another article about more hypocrisy in your last line but it's late, I'll save it for later. Over and out.
It’s a long piece, most of which I agree with, and you’re right that I made assumptions about you after accusing you of doing the same, so apologies for that.
The main point about the Louise Haigh case is that had she been a minister in the last government it would barely have made it into the papers, let alone been a front page headline. That’s really what annoys me about the current hysteria (not from you) and why I replied to you the way I did.
I’m only a Labour fan, as you say, in the sense that anything is better than what we had for most of the last 14 years. They still have a long way to go to get my unqualified support.
Difference between this and "Rachel from accounts" is that with Rachel Reeves "embelllishing her CV" she has been pushing the economist line since before she first went to be an candidate right through to now and it was an outsider (guido) that brought that to light. Starmer is standing by her and she is still in post.
Louise Haigh is an insider job. The top team wanted her out and have made a mountain out of a molehill. I have no idea why a spent crime caused the problem. It was 6 months before she became an MP ad the party will have known about it. Either there is a much bigger story here or they have utilised the first opportunity to get her out.
The right wing gloating is more about yet another "holier than thou" being caught by their own petard. stones and glass houses and all that. Its more about the very low bar that is set these days due to the angels in opposition (whoever they be at the time) calling out those in power for the smallest things and then when they get in power being found to be just as bad.
Resignations used to be a big thing but these days every day every politician is calling for people to resign over spelling mistakes. It is ridiculous but that is the game they play and so they have to make sure their own house is in order.
We will have to wait and see if there is more to it than a decade old spent crime. At the mo it seems a very flimsy thing for a PM to "act swiftly" over.
Where I am the average daily temperature for November has been 19C which is 3C higher than the normal average.
Not sure what the payback will be for this unless it will manifest in more extreme storms, as recently seen nearby.
I think it was the appalling Guido Fawkes who first broke the story and my guess is that the Starmer insiders overreacted. They should have a bit more bottle in my opinion, but I understand why they did what they did.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/29/how-labour-insiders-trying-depose-louise-haigh/
According to this article Labour insiders "tipped off the Tories" before the election. Then after her comments on P&O tipped of a journalist, then unhappy with the speed of things tipped off more journalists! Seems the "top team" were after her before the election!
For all the comments about Tory Dis-unity and infighting......here we are again like in Blair's years with the centrists fighting against the left wing union side of their party. In party fighting continues......even after the Tories are dumped out.
Nothing has changed since the days of "Yes Prime Minister," other than the politicians becoming thicker and with less morals. Who really runs the country? Sue Gray now gone, Morgan McSweeney won that battle and now he has gone "peak Tucker." These guys have become very powerful in the modern era from the days of Alistair Campbell/Jonathan Powell through to Dominic Cummings and right through to today!
Co-incidence that Powell is now back in the frame under Starmer?
According to this article Labour insiders "tipped off the Tories" before the election. Then after her comments on P&O tipped of a journalist, then unhappy with the speed of things tipped off more journalists! Seems the "top team" were after her before the election!
For all the comments about Tory Dis-unity and infighting......here we are again like in Blair's years with the centrists fighting against the left wing union side of their party. In party fighting continues......even after the Tories are dumped out.
You must log in or register to see images
Nothing has changed since the days of "Yes Prime Minister," other than the politicians becoming thicker and with less morals. Who really runs the country? Sue Gray now gone, Morgan McSweeney won that battle and now he has gone "peak Tucker." These guys have become very powerful in the modern era from the days of Alistair Campbell/Jonathan Powell through to Dominic Cummings and right through to today!
Co-incidence that Powell is now back in the frame under Starmer?
You must log in or register to see images
Last edited:
I have said on here many times, Labour are just as corrupt, (arguably more so) than Tory.
They virgue signal and pretend they have the interests of working people at heart, when they are just as bad. It baffles me that people fall for it.
For example, the lefts hero Jeremy Corbyn married a millionaire ex investment banker who was found to be paying her staff below minimum wage.
They’re in total hypocrites who will say/do anything for power. They have absolutely no moral leg to stand on at all.
They virgue signal and pretend they have the interests of working people at heart, when they are just as bad. It baffles me that people fall for it.
For example, the lefts hero Jeremy Corbyn married a millionaire ex investment banker who was found to be paying her staff below minimum wage.
They’re in total hypocrites who will say/do anything for power. They have absolutely no moral leg to stand on at all.
Where to start, with an article so full of outright lies and deliberate misinformation?
First off, no one got a "whopping 15% pay rise in August". Secondly, most Rail workers are not train drivers, and are represented by the RMT not Aslef. In any case, a three year settlement consisting of 5% for year one, 4.75% for year two, and 4.25% for year three, covering a period when inflation peaked at 12%, is not a 15% pay rise.
The Telegraph is bog roll mate; don't believe a word...
Oh Jeez. You have done it again.
Laura Alvarez was a distributor for a company that sells coffee beans. Not the owner. And why is the guy who constantly goes on about the jealous left so upset that someone on the left has money?
The Corbyn-Alvarez romance is an amazing thing by the way. He helped rescue her niece after she was abducted and then they had a long distance relationship. Very sweet and wholesome in the grand scheme of things.
Socialists aren’t allowed to drink Champagne though, for some reason.
Never liked it myself, but not for political reasons; just though it was overrated
Worth noting that Louise Haigh is also a bit too far left than where Starmer wants HIS version of Labour to be.
For all his faults, Tony Blair at least had people in his cabinet who would oppose him whereas Starmer doesn’t like opposition.
For all his faults, Tony Blair at least had people in his cabinet who would oppose him whereas Starmer doesn’t like opposition.
I like to celebrate the success of others. But not when the man is a ridiculous virtue signalling hypocrite who’s ideas would destroy our country
So you like success in people you like and dislike it in people you don’t.
Got you.
That's a little bit revisionist. Tony Blair had a proper mandate, not a "by default" landslide like Starmer and any that would oppose him he just ignored! Jack Straw was full of demands which basically just got a short sharp response and most of the "left" in his cabinet the same, even Brown and the Brownites had to "toe the line" for a long time until Blair was weakened during his second term. The first 6-7 years there was not a lot of opposition at all! It was 100% Blair and his top team of Campbell and Powell.
Starmer doesn't have that same scenario, He didn't get his win with a groundswell of optimism from the public, and is not strong enough, personally either, to be able to hold those people at bay. A little like Boris veered towards having to oust opposition from within and surround himself with "yes" men/women.
You can argue the points made might be misleading or inaccurate however it is patently obvious that this was an inside job, quite different from when opponents try to get some sacked. That is the point. And I agree about the Telegraph. It is as much a rag of the right as the Guardian is a rag of the left. Both are garbage as are virtually all publications!