Thread: The British Prime Minister - for as long as there is a Great Britain

We demand the return of the Sausages, its like Starmer was there on Soi 4

“I call again for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the sausages – the hostages – and a recommitment to the two-state solution: recognised Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel.”

Keir Starmer makes Gaza ‘sausages’ gaffe in Labour conference speech | Keir Starmer | The Guardian

"...the return of the sausages..."



Starmer will never be allowed to forget that.

Good to see a tribute to a TD poster.

Another embarrassing moment for the PM: Labour delegates have voted in favour of a motion calling to reverse the cut to the winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. It was a non-binding vote though so Keir Starmer can ignore it. Surely that will annoy the delegates and other Labour party members.




Labour leadership loses conference vote on winter fuel payments | Labour conference 2024 | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Neverna

"...the return of the sausages..."



Starmer will never be allowed to forget that.

The irony is delicious though, the Jews encased in their skins likened to mere tubes of minced pork, breadcrumbs, fat and gristle to be returned to the land of the Torah.

Not kosher, eh?

Har, har.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

Its amazing what a pet millionair can do for your wardrobe and eye sight.

Now after the OECD has forecast the UK to grow the fastest in the G7 I wonder if someone can cheer Eeyore up and stop him running the country down every time he opens his mouth.

more on the the rank hypocrisy of the two faced socialists



Sorry, Labour: it’s not one rule for you, and another for the rest of us




Tom Harris

26 September 2024 1:20pm

Remember Dominic Cummings? The man who was the bête noir of the British Left after he led the victorious campaign to leave the European Union in 2016 was almost as hated as his boss Boris Johnson was, especially when he was hired as Johnson’s most senior adviser in number 10.

But now the truth can be revealed: the public (and media) had no right to discuss Cummings, however controversial his behaviour might have been. That comes from the horse’s mouth, from Keir Starmer himself, during an interview during his visit to the United States this week: “I’m not going to discuss individual members of staff, whoever they are. I don’t believe that my staff should be the subject of public debate like this, and I’m not going to play any part in it.”

Of course, the contexts of the controversies around Cummings and the recent criticism of Sue Gray, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, are very different. Gray finds herself in the spotlight partly because it has been revealed that she is paid more than her boss, which some people believe at the very least might justify the raising of an eyebrow or two. Cummings, on the other hand, provided acres of coverage during the early part of the last parliament by being constantly at the centre of various briefing wars between himself and the then Prime Minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson.

But now we have the authoritative line: a Prime Minister’s staff member is not to be discussed publicly, either by the Prime Minister himself or by the media. It is to be regretted, not least by Boris Johnson and Mr Cummings himself, that this new generosity towards special advisers has been extended by the Labour Party only recently, representing quite a marked change in tactics. For the party, when in opposition, was not slow to criticise any and every aspect of Cummings’ behaviour, and by implication, that of his boss, at every opportunity.

Still, perhaps we must extend some patience towards Starmer; he is discovering – and probably at a swifter and less comfortable pace than he expected – that governing is a bit harder than being in opposition. Perhaps he is only now placing himself in his predecessor’s shoes and starting to recognise how difficult it is to manage the various personalities in Downing Street while the ravenous media is constantly demanding to be fed.

There is, however, an alternative, less charitable interpretation of the Prime Minister’s words, which is that he has cynically decided that, now that the tables have turned and that he is in government and the Conservatives in opposition, a different set of standards should apply to him, his ministers and to his staff.

Unfortunately, this would chime more comfortably with the behaviour of both Starmer and his senior lieutenants in the last few weeks. In opposition, Labour never tired of seeking to accuse their opposite numbers of venality, of exposing their various acceptance of donations from generous benefactors as evidence of greed and corruption. They regularly announced, as if from a pulpit rather than from the despatch box in the Commons, that moral standards would be lifted to the heights of the angels themselves once the people had come to their senses and voted Labour at a general election.

And yet, once in office, and their own tendency to accept similar gifts from wealthy donors was examined, they resorted, not to a mea culpa or to self-flagellation for their own misjudgments, but to saying that when they did it, it was all fine because they had declared all their gifts in the Members Register of Interests.

It’s all Harold Wilson’s fault (bear with me).

Labour’s third ever Prime Minister, the victor in four out of the five general elections he fought in the 1960s and ’70s, may not actually have said that “a week is a long time in politics”, but he did say that “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.”

This inspired the comrades at the time and it has been doing so ever since. And that’s the problem: too many of them actually believed Wilson and thought that the comment was clever, virtuous and true.

It was not. It was a stupid thing to say because it is so obviously false. Labour is a political party, just like any other one. And like other political parties, it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It does some good things and also some bad things. It believes some good things and it believes some bad things. It is for religious and evangelical organisations to undertake moral crusades; it is for political parties to govern the country and to try not to make too much of a hash of it.

But Wilson was exploiting the innate sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority that he knew resides in the hearts of most Labour Party members. No Labour leader ever became less popular among his members by exploiting their belief that they are better than everyone else.

The row over donations, the hapless and arrogant dismissal of the furore that ministers themselves have provoked, the Prime Minister’s outrage that his own staff be treated in the same way that Conservative government staffers were treated, the assumption that removing the winter heating allowance from some pensioners by a Labour government is somehow more acceptable than it would have been had a Conservative government done the same – all it reveals is that Wilson’s dictum is believed as intensely today as it was 60 years ago.

It is a damaging falsehood because it leads the party inexorably and inevitably towards a place where double standards shape the narrative of this government. And the longer that ministers and civil servants believe, despite all the evidence, that their behaviour is more acceptable simply because of the colour of their party membership cards, the less likely the voters are going to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt.

THE TELEGRAPH

More bollocks from the DT.
As it happens, I've been paid more than my bosses for over 20 years.

A storm in a teacup.

Originally Posted by Switch

That apart, and with all due respect, your personal status and finances are quite irrelevant in this case.

AS usual, Switch, you are more concerned with the poster, and miss the point. That point being that it is not unusual for advisors to be paid more than their bosses.

The Daily Telegraph fell from grace some time ago. I now only bother with the subscription for the cryptic, which I have enjoyed since childhood.

^ Indeed and her salary merely reflects the fact she has more responsibility and makes the decisions

^ It's also a level of abstraction from the problem so that when things go wrong, it was due to wrong advice, but when things go well bosses take the credit.

dave spart

Fuck ‘em, fuck the rich!

How much does Sir Keir Starmer earn?

In 2021/2022, Sir Keir Starmer's salary for being a Labour MP was £76,961 and he received an extra £49,193 for being leader of the opposition.

He was previously Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013, a role which is known to command a hefty salary.

As of April 1 2022, the UK prime minister is entitled to £164,951 annually.

Keir reportedly also owns seven acres of land in Surrey next to his childhood home, which he inherited in 1996. The Mail on Sunday reported in May 2020, upon Sir Keir’s election as Labour leader, that he owns seven acres of land in Surrey worth up to £10m.

Taking into account his land, home, law and political career, Sir Keir Starmer has a net worth of approximately £7.7 million.

anyone with savings, investments or assets will do whatever is necessary within the law to prevent it falling into the hands of grasping politicians to squander on useless vote buying schemes, on the hordes of the latest "protected species".. the benefit grabbing scum that are the cause of so many of the uks ills and of course on brexit obsessed pattaya marooned expat grifters falsely claiming to be resident in the uk in order to maximise their pension entitlements. fuck 'em indeed.


Mother of eight on benefits boasts about spending on breast implants and horse
Marie Buchan, 42, has relied on taxpayer-funded handouts for 23 years amounting to about £500,000 and says she’s had ‘lots of luxuries’

Alex Barton
Related Topics
Department for Work & Pensions, Local councils, Council tax, Cosmetic surgery, Jobs and employment
25 September 2024 1:04pm



Marie Buchan

Marie Buchan, 42, says being on benefits ‘has never held me back’ and insists her family is better off on welfare BPM Media
A mother of eight has told of her lavish spending on a horse and breast enhancement surgery despite being on benefits.

Marie Buchan has been relying on taxpayer-funded handouts for 23 years, amounting to about £500,000.

But despite being jobless and living off of the state, the 42-year-old has been able to spend the money frivolously.

Ms Buchan, 42, who has been dubbed “The Welfare Queen”, told The Sun: “Being on benefits has never held me back from doing anything. I have had a lot of luxuries.”

The single mother, who lives in a four-bedroom house in Selly Oak, Birmingham, is among about 9.4 million people who are currently jobless, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the Labour Party conference on Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, vowed to “do everything we can to tackle worklessness”.

In her 23 years of claiming benefits, Ms Buchan’s annual income has fluctuated between £26,000 and £37,000.

While she admits she feels guilty for taking taxpayers’ money, she argued there was no incentive to work.

“I believe we are better off on benefits, because we get help in every area of our lives, whether that’s the rent, bringing up the kids, or bills,” she said.

“You can access food banks or fuel vouchers. There’s a lot of help out there. I’ve completed six college courses on mechanics and social work, but I’m still sitting here claiming my benefits. I’ve done nothing with them.

“It’s very easy to sit in the system for the rest of your life.”

Maria Buchan
Ms Buchan had her first child when she was 19 BPN Media
In 2018, Ms Buchan caused outrage after travelling to Turkey to spend £1,500 on breast surgery.

After being met with widespread backlash, Ms Buchan insisted she had raised the money to pay for the procedure through car boot sales.

The following year it emerged that she had travelled abroad for surgery on her vagina. She again insisted she financed this from car boot sales.

“I did fly abroad to get the surgery, but it’s something I’ve come to regret,” she said. “It was all a very big mistake and it’s embarrassing for my kids.”

She faced further backlash after deciding to buy a horse with her benefits.

Aged 19, Ms Buchan gave birth to her first child Tia and entered the benefits system, giving up her career as a part-time carer.

Marie Buchan and family

In 2015, she said the proposed benefit cap would leave her struggling to pay her rent and bills Darren Quinton/BPN Media
In 2015, she appeared on This Morning and said the proposed £23,000 a year benefit cap would leave her short.

“I was on £26,000 at the time, meaning I only had £500 a week to survive on,” she said. “We are a big family, so half of it would go on our food shop alone.

“We also had the rent, the council tax and bills to worry about. The council only paid £45 per week towards rent and £16 per week towards council tax.”

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Fuck ‘em, fuck the rich!

Harry.

Fuxing hell, Harry.

The quintessence of rich/upper class uselessness.

Originally Posted by Troy

AS usual, Switch, you are more concerned with the poster, and miss the point. That point being that it is not unusual for advisors to be paid more than their bosses

Sorry, but the point was not missed at all. In this case, your point was not relevant. I replied to the post, not the poster.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Indeed, we shouldn’t tolerate double standards. Cameron’s and his family fortunes squirrelled away in tax havens and his acting as a shill for a crook is the way forward.

Double standards? Not with the Daily Torygraph, eh?

The Tory press is beside itself with frustration and rage it is so irrelevant.

Fuck ‘em, fuck the rich!

Bristling with impotent rage, is a great description of you. Foul mouthed old fart. Tell everyone you are joking. Of course you are. What a load of bilge you spout. Stop pretending to be the outrage bus champion of all that is wrong in Britain today.
You have no idea how bad it is, and still choose to complain about Pattaya.
Do carry on being a curmudgeon. At least you are adequate at that.

Switch, going at the poster rather than the topic.

I must admit, you're consistent.

Is it not better be a switch than a knob ?

^ Switch is a knob! A prize one at that.

Mostly just thick, shallow ex-service.

Not really raised to focus on the wider issues.