Labour

Forums New posts
Archie said:
Not sure you need to preface it with 'even you'. I don't love it, but I do find some of the critique a little hypocritical.
Click to expand...
"Even you" because your defence of the indefensible with regards to Labout is pretty extraordinary. FFS even Alistair Campbell can sometimes be critical of Labour....

Interestingly you blanked the question.
 
Smurf said:
"Even you" because your defence of the indefensible with regards to Labout is pretty extraordinary. FFS even Alistair Campbell can sometimes be critical of Labour....

Interestingly you blanked the question.
Click to expand...
How did I blank it?
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Once again a decent point Jack.

But she cannot moan about fat cats taking big bonuses in cash if it is legal.

Morally it's wrong.

But what's good for Rayners goose is also good for the fat cats gander 🤔 (I think)
Click to expand...
Snouts in trough, you say, Jimmy?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Jack said:
As far as I'm aware nothing that she did was illegal. Once the stuff was looked into properly rather than the rabid press going off with half a story there wasn't a story after all.
Click to expand...
Maybe common sense should prevail and stop giving people who resign ANY kind of pay-off from tax payer’s money.
They complain when others mis-use tax payers money, bits is fine for them as it’s in the contract
Then remove it from the contract, any misuse of payments to mp’s from tax payers should be taken out of any contract.
Why is it there when it is definitely not the norm?
I’d like to hear why it’s in the contract. Probably the reason they shears get asked “to resign” instead of a sacking. It lets them further abuse tax payers money. I mean, that’s literally what it is
 
Hattie said:
Maybe common sense should prevail and stop giving people who resign ANY kind of pay-off from tax payer’s money.
They complain when others mis-use tax payers money, bits is fine for them as it’s in the contract
Then remove it from the contract, any misuse of payments to mp’s from tax payers should be taken out of any contract.
Why is it there when it is definitely not the norm?
I’d like to hear why it’s in the contract. Probably the reason they shears get asked “to resign” instead of a sacking. It lets them further abuse tax payers money. I mean, that’s literally what it is
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent but until they in effect vote to remove it themselves they will be given it.

Having said that I'm fairly sure the package they get is set by an independent review body who will take into account what others get with similar responsibilities. MPs will vote to accept/reject their recommendations.

I've no idea who those others might be or what they do. It's bound to be online somewhere.
 
Get the impression Burnham's wife is not enjoying her time so far as the UK's First lady..
Looked awfy uncomfortable in the limelight on the day her hubby became PM, and apparently was none too happy when he told her he was going to run for the third time for the Labour leadership. Doubt she will welcome the scrutiny of them whilst they are on holiday either, not to mention the media criticism of it.

Might be wrong, but I just don't think he is going to be long term in the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom