The next 5 years with Labour?

[768]

chrispmartha said:

Doesn’t alter my point. He would have been vilified on here whatever he did.

It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.

If he had refrained from including her in his cabinet, this would probably not have made the news.

[Pan Pan Pan]

chrispmartha said:

LimmerickLad said:

chrispmartha said:

Wombat3 said:

Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.

If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?

She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.

None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.

Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?

Off the scale.

And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud.

Starmer derangement syndrome.

But he knew all about it when he appointed her.....didn't he?

Doesn’t alter my point. He would have been vilified on here whatever he did.

It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.

It is indeed. those who support the left, would have been screaming like stuck pigs, if the useless tories had done even a fraction of the nonsense, that labour have indulged in, in the few months they have been in office.

[pheonix478]

chrispmartha said:

Dying your hair screams needy and a bit tragic?

It’s 2024

A "fun" colour, yes, IME and IMO. Not everyone thinks like you. Welcome to 2024.

[pheonix478]

LimmerickLad said:

But he knew all about it when he appointed her.....didn't he?

According to the Guardian...
"Starmer’s official spokesperson refused to confirm on Friday whether the prime minister knew about the conviction at any point.

Haigh is known for her vivid red hair and engaging communication style.
Louise Haigh: Labour’s outspoken young survivor is derailed by her past
Read more
In a briefing with reporters, the spokesperson repeated the same line that “following further information emerging, the prime minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation”."

I'm still at a loss to understand why she resigned. More useless MP's have survived far worse. What is the "further information" that emerged?

[Gordon Hill]

chrispmartha said:

LimmerickLad said:

chrispmartha said:

Wombat3 said:

Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.

If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?

She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.

None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.

Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?

Off the scale.

And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud.

Starmer derangement syndrome.

But he knew all about it when he appointed her.....didn't he?

Doesn’t alter my point. He would have been vilified on here whatever he did.

It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.

The only thing that's hilarious is how you and your Siamese twin constantly take the moral high ground.

[Wombat3]

chrispmartha said:

Wombat3 said:

Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.

If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?

She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.

None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.

Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?

Off the scale.

And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud.

Starmer derangement syndrome.

Yep, you've nailed it

He's a for appointing someone with a criminal record

And then he's a for not standing behind whatever decision he made.

Either way he is a captain flip flopping !

[monkfish1]

pheonix478 said:

LimmerickLad said:

But he knew all about it when he appointed her.....didn't he?

According to the Guardian...
"Starmer’s official spokesperson refused to confirm on Friday whether the prime minister knew about the conviction at any point.

Haigh is known for her vivid red hair and engaging communication style.
Louise Haigh: Labour’s outspoken young survivor is derailed by her past
Read more
In a briefing with reporters, the spokesperson repeated the same line that “following further information emerging, the prime minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation”."

I'm still at a loss to understand why she resigned. More useless MP's have survived far worse. What is the "further information" that emerged?

Ministers dont normally choose to resign. They get told to resign.

[Wombat3]

monkfish1 said:

pheonix478 said:

LimmerickLad said:

But he knew all about it when he appointed her.....didn't he?

According to the Guardian...
"Starmer’s official spokesperson refused to confirm on Friday whether the prime minister knew about the conviction at any point.

Haigh is known for her vivid red hair and engaging communication style.
Louise Haigh: Labour’s outspoken young survivor is derailed by her past
Read more
In a briefing with reporters, the spokesperson repeated the same line that “following further information emerging, the prime minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation”."

I'm still at a loss to understand why she resigned. More useless MP's have survived far worse. What is the "further information" that emerged?

Ministers dont normally choose to resign. They get told to resign.

That is the rumour in this case

[chrispmartha]

Gordon Hill said:

The only thing that's hilarious is how you and your Siamese twin constantly take the moral high ground.

It doesn’t really need to be very high on here ;-)

[FiF]

Having said all that a joke about a flamboyant hair style could just be, you know, a joke. Full stop. Rule off.

Bit like comments about the Conservative ladies blue rinse brigade. Not to be taken seriously.

[Evanivitch]

Pan Pan Pan said:

It is indeed. those who support the left, would have been screaming like stuck pigs, if the useless tories had done even a fraction of the nonsense, that labour have indulged in, in the few months they have been in office.

Short memories in here.

[Cold]

It wasn't that long ago that Labour insisted that any MP even accused of wrongdoing should immediately resign.

[bitchstewie]

FiF said:

Having said all that a joke about a flamboyant hair style could just be, you know, a joke. Full stop. Rule off.

Bit like comments about the Conservative ladies blue rinse brigade. Not to be taken seriously.

Yeah it's all a big jolly joke isn't it.

Along with the "jokes" about clothing that's now moved on to "jokes" about women who keep their maiden names.

Except it's not a joke and you won't take it seriously because that would mean challenging the people saying it and people like you won't do that.

Wouldn't want to rock the boat by showing some standards and calling it out would we.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Phew, Stewie, you are OK. We were worried something might have happened to you as you did not start one of your "Absolute state of it' threads about the latest grubby behaviour from a minister.

Given how much rich pickings there are in the current Labour government it is quite shocking how quiet you have been. Has your moral crusade about standards for government ministers ended?

[bitchstewie]

Yeah I'd probably try to move it away from some members attitudes towards women and the lack of challenge of those attitudes too.

If you want to know my views on Haigh go read the Haigh thread it's all on there.

[Gecko1978]

bhstewie said:

chrispmartha said:

I think the forum is jumping the shark to be honest.

We've had hair colour and trouser colour all being indicators of ability to do a job today alone.

Hilarious as it is that they actually mean it there's also a serious side to it about attitudes which I find pretty grim.

Not really concerned with the hair more the Times article seems to indicate not that she forgot it had been stolen more she knew fine well it was not an easy using it for personal calls (assume a new sim) an this was 3rd phone she appeared to have lost So I wonder if she has same attitude to public property will stuff go missing from her office at Westminster will she forget to pay for things in the staff canteen etc.

Look I have kept biro's note pads, computer mice, headphones (in ear so was told to keep it) from old jobs I suspect most have. (The computer mice was when leaving an office closing and they were literally throwing stuff in a skip on the last day but it'd still theft).

But I have never filed a false police report so I could keep a high value item. This seems to be issue she is dishonest

[Wombat3]

Gecko1978 said:

bhstewie said:

chrispmartha said:

I think the forum is jumping the shark to be honest.

We've had hair colour and trouser colour all being indicators of ability to do a job today alone.

Hilarious as it is that they actually mean it there's also a serious side to it about attitudes which I find pretty grim.

Not really concerned with the hair more the Times article seems to indicate not that she forgot it had been stolen more she knew fine well it was not an easy using it for personal calls (assume a new sim) an this was 3rd phone she appeared to have lost So I wonder if she has same attitude to public property will stuff go missing from her office at Westminster will she forget to pay for things in the staff canteen etc.

Look I have kept biro's note pads, computer mice, headphones (in ear so was told to keep it) from old jobs I suspect most have. (The computer mice was when leaving an office closing and they were literally throwing stuff in a skip on the last day but it'd still theft).

But I have never filed a false police report so I could keep a high value item. This seems to be issue she is dishonest

Reminds me of Angie's "lost" Airpods

[KAgantua]

@stewie do you have any other websites you visit? Or is it just this one?

I take it your life support system is running on the same OS as the browser you are on now?

[pheonix478]

bhstewie said:

Yeah I'd probably try to move it away from some members attitudes towards women and the lack of challenge of those attitudes too.

If you want to know my views on Haigh go read the Haigh thread it's all on there.

Oh please. The moral posturing is absolutely pathetic. If vivid raid hair isn't a giant red flag on a 40 year old I don't know what is. Of course that's not to say she can't do her job. No, getting fired suggests she's not very good at her job and getting a stupid criminal conviction suggests she's a fckung idiot. The hair is coincidental and irrelevant save for those desperate to defend her pathetic, criminal behavior.

Edited by pheonix478 on Saturday 30th November 12:18

[chrispmartha]

pheonix478 said:

bhstewie said:

Yeah I'd probably try to move it away from some members attitudes towards women and the lack of challenge of those attitudes too.

If you want to know my views on Haigh go read the Haigh thread it's all on there.

Oh please. The moral posturing is absolutely pathetic. If vivid raid hair isn't a giant red flag on a 40 year old I don't know what is. Of course that's not to say she can't do her job. No, getting fired suggests she's not very good at her job and getting a stupid criminal conviction suggests she's a fckung idiot. The hair is coincidental and irrelevant save for those desperate to defend her pathetic, criminal behavior.

Edited by pheonix478 on Saturday 30th November 12:18

Red flag? For what?