clearly they are morally good people for the most part

 

?? How is that clear? Very confused by that line.

So much of it is a fuss about nothing. It may change, but so far there is no suggestion that Waheed Alli (the main donor) has gained anything involving public money from his donations. In 2015, Cameron changed the rules so that ministers didn't have to declare gifts in the same way as other MPs. That meant that a minister attending an event didn't have to declare it, but their shadow attending the same event did have to declare it. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Leader of the Opposition was the MP who declared the highest value in gifts.

 

The press are, inevitably, applying blatant double standards. Sarah Vine, for example, is trying to claim that Starmer is the most corrupt politician ever. She seems to have forgotten that, when she was Mrs Gove, she benefitted from many similar gifts. If the press somehow forces Starmer to resign, it's hard to see how any Labour PM will last for as much as a year as no Labour MP will ever be squeaky-clean enough to satisfy the mob. Tories, OTOH, will get away with almost anything. Their other motive is that it is now almost impossible for Labour to reopen the Leveson inquiry into the press as they will be accused of doing it to try to silence the press.

 

Every Labour government faces a hostile press. If Starmer managed to broker ceasefire deals in every current war, he would be accused by the press of damaging the UK arms industry.

Most corrupt ever ... following BORIS JOHNSON!!!! :rofl: It's laughable.

?? How is that clear? Very confused by that line.

 

The idea of 'country above party' that Labour have been sticking to is some evidence of this. The last Conservative government, throughout its lifespan was defined by 'party above country' with so many self-destructive decisions made by the leader of the day to try and retain power, and so many of the actions of its members were that of generally patronising 'we're in charge and you're not, plebs', focused on retaining power rather than the lip service they paid to improving the country. So outside of their already horrific policies, makes it easier to cast them as not good people. Which they are not.

 

In contrast, Labour's top team are, as of now, aiming themselves towards public service and therefore come across as more altruistic. I don't know if they are, certainly some of the Labour right maneuvering against the left since 2019 has been very unpleasant. But the general gist I get from their public image is that they seem far more like normal people granted power and trying to improve people's lives than their counterparts ever were.

 

For all Johnson/Farage etc portrayed themselves as a 'bloke down the pub', Starmer's persona is far more like what a normal middle-aged bloke actually is, not obsessed with power, for one.

More Tory hypocrisy on show today. In 2022, James 'Jimmy Dimly' Cleverley started negotiations on handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. There were eleven rounds of talks involving him and his successor David Cameron. The final two rounds of negotiations were with David Lammy. You don't have to be a genius to work out that Lammy will have inherited something close to a deal.

 

Now that labour has finalised the deal, the Tories, including the very same Dimly (who just happens to be running for the party leadership) are outraged. If they really are outraged, that means they were negotiating in bad faith and never intended to reach a deal. Whatever the truth, they are being their usual dishonest selves with their friends in the press doing their bit to help them.

Don't forget that the government, after Blojo, who was resistant, was following the US government's directions. Biden wanted the deal by November 5th. The UK was going along with it, and it would have happened under Slimy Sunak RichiRich, or under Truss, or under Starmer, or even under Nazi Farage.

I really can't quite believe how much mileage the right wing press is making out of Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands, islands the ICJ instructed us to give back in 2019 (specifically remember it after that election as an example of how the incoming Johnson gov was flouting international law again), and a process that was started under the last Tory government, due to complete about this time anyway.

 

Really. Article after article about Britain in decline on the world stage and handwringing that the Falklands might be next. For a couple of strips of land with no native populations about as in the middle of nowhere as you can get that we were due to give back anyway, and in any case we're maintaining the lease on the military base. It's pathetic.

 

Though the Sue Gray resignation might knock it off the front pages for a bit - particularly as her replacement seems to be Morgan McSweeney, the Labour strategist who is esssentially responsible for everything I dislike about the current incarnation of Labour. He's an effective operator but he's completely unlikeable. Possibly a bit like Cummings then.

Looks like the budget might be a little more happier, few news outlets running with the idea that Reeves is going to increase borrowing for investment. Be interested to see how the Left of the Party react to this if it happens. Must say I feel it is slightly risky, as it has the potential to really spook the markets, but if it's well presented, slick and thought out then some short term pain for longer term gain isn't a bad thing.

f*** the markets!!

Dream scenario -

 

None of the Tory tabloid scare stories are true

People who believed them and end up losing money sue the papers that spread the stories

They win

Purveyors of lies lose huge sums of money

The markets are generally receptive to borrow to invest plans as that’s GDP growth 101. much of what is borrowed will return to the state in either income, corporate or value added taxes and at the same time provides new economic opportunities

 

What truss did was borrow to cut taxes which is unsustainable and leads only to significantly more financial borrowings down the line. Her economic illiteracy spooked the markets. Not the idea generally of the state borrowing cash

According to The Times, some Tory MPs are considering resigning their seats if the proposed restrictions on second jobs for MPs limit their outside earnings substantially. Let's hope they are in seats the Lib Dems can win and that there are enough of them to relegate the Tories into third place in the Commons.

Date I say it.. an actual decent budget which I think fits in the manifesto and doesn’t quite fall too hard in to the traps the Tories left?

 

Obviously some things not great like cuts to all department budgets but not really sure what can be done without tax rises. The big win for me is the tax thresholds coming to an end in 2028-2029 I think. Seems the perfect opportunity for Labour to push through a ‘tax decrease’ ahead of an election..

I need to catch up on everything in full but was pleased to hear about the sums that will be invested into education and the NHS.

In general, a pretty decent budget (though I'm certain the Telegraph/Tabloid rags will declare it's the worst ever), was very pleased to hear about the amount going into SEN and education in particular. The lack of investment in public transport is more of a shame.

I thought the increase in the bus fare cap was OK until Reeves chose to freeze fuel duty for yet another year.

Yeah, there are some decent things in the budget for public transport, like putting HS2 in Euston, future investment in certain bus and train routes, but keeping fuel duty in while allowing the very popular bus fare cap to go up is going to overshadow that part of it.

 

The worst thing about this government so far is an inability to understand how cutting something to save a small amount of money is not worth the outcry and the comparatively huge benefits that it provides. I was never one to go to bat for the WFA because I'm not old and as much as I'm against making things mean-tested unnecessarily some wastage was clearly there, but the saving was not worth the hit to the government's reputation.

 

Similarly, even though the government came up with figures showing that the bus cap was losing them money by only providing 71-90p's worth of investment for every pound spent, that isn't going to fly when people who use the bus now have a 50% increase of what they have to pay. For people who use buses to get to work, that's losing hundreds of pounds over the year that they may well not have to spare, and they will directly blame Labour for that. Direct example for myself as to why this is just a dumb idea, I use the bus sometimes to get into town as it's about equal cost to parking there. An increase is going to make me reconsider it and start clogging up the town centre with a vehicle that doesn't need to be there. Countries with functioning large urban areas get this right and massively subsidise public transport to make it usable and declog the centres of car traffic - and the Tories were on the right track if not perfect (should have been even cheaper) with this policy, so very disappointing Labour instantly start treating it as a fee that you just start increasing annually.

 

That said, real positive to see income tax thresholds unfrozen and to go with inflation in the future, capital gains tax up, and the minimum wage rising. It's a much more positive budget than I was expecting and the right sort of language from a government coming out of tough economic times and providing enough investment to ensure they don't happen again. Hope that that all gets realised and it's treated relatively well by the press, who seem to have been giving Labour a slight reprieve the last few days, although that's probably because they're more interested in what's happening across the Atlantic.

I predict that Rachel Reeves will be the next PM.

Time will tell if it was a good budget I highly doubt it

Time will tell if it was a good budget I highly doubt it

 

Why the doubts? Seems good to me.