Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

I think my point was more that it's blatant unattributed plagiarism. Purely by chance cut from an article I read in the original very recently, so it was fresh in my mind.

I don't dispute the validity of questions about Farage and others political funding, but I've always thought it was a forum rule that sources were acknowledged (some sort of IP breach protection for FM?)

BUT it's hardly a surprise, all political campaigns are run on the back of donors who have vested interests at heart. And it's disclosed, which is refreshing. So is it necessarily wrong or is it just that financial support for a candidate that the author doesn't like makes it wrong? The politics of envy ?

Fair enough…but if that was your point you didn’t make it very well as the majority of your post didn’t mention plagiarism, but was trying to somehow square the circle with mention of Starmer’s Taylor Swift tickets and portray Swale as some sort of propogandist.

I’d suggest we ALL plagiarise to an extent, otherwise this forum would just be a collection of attachments, and it’s hardly the ‘politics of envy’ to expose the questionable behaviour of an MP…but then I remember you defending Boris Johnson and telling us all what a ‘nice chap’ he was.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I have to say that I have huge sympathy for Starmer if he had to go see Swift. Hopefully he could flog the tickets on the grey market for a tidy surplus...

Or it would have been amusing to give the tickets to some homeless street people who no doubt would be of great benefit to the political shenanigans of the FA

[swaledale]

Or at least so says the Irish Times which is the unattributed source of this cut and paste plagiarism.

Yet somehow the poster only cut and pasted selective bits of the article, omitting the bit that also included "The newest register of interests also confirms that prime minister Keir Starmer was gifted four tickets with hospitality to a Taylor Swift concert by the Football Association, worth £4,000." and mentions "huge amounts of cash given to new MPs by the Labour Together think tank".

You would have done a great job for the Reichs Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Swale.

For those interested in the full article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/...-from-gb-news/

Somehow I selectively posted? Mm well done sunshine, I was making the point about Farage and his funding

And your point is? other than to ignore the reason why I did the post, it seems you rush to defend an MP who by most people's calculation is working a min of 30hrs per week on matters other than his MP's job. Yes indeed, your quick aren't you? Farage is funded by donors with questionable motives, as I point out ones hardly aligned with the politics that Farage supposedly puts forward.

At least its disclosed? Mm as an MP Farage has no choice but to make financial disclosures, its a requirement of being an elected MP, so no credit to Farage he is forced to do it!!

The information is publicly available, so not really much point in me retyping it is there?

**** me, you ****ers whine when I post stuff and question its validity, then carp on when I post publicly available information without retyping the whole ****ing lot!

Yet somehow you still don't see the issue here.

I mean yes the Labour party has donors who have a political agenda, the thing is, that agenda tends to be in line with what the Labour party stands for, whereas reading Farage's funding and only a complete idiot would not ask the question, why are dubious billionaires and a media organisation owned by a right wing billionaire and whose agenda is to push a (largely false) agenda funding Farage?

As I said, what on earth makes certain people, like Thicky who complain about how politics and an "elite" is "against" the so called ordinary citizen, believe that Farage and his private company masquerading as a political party is remotely interested in advancing the case for the "ordinary" person?

But then maybe your too stupid to understand that? or to keen to criticise me, for posting the facts?

You would have done a great job for the Reichs Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Swale. WTF are you on about? Are you claiming that what I have posted isn't true? Because it is, its factual, so not propaganda is it?

Is it because I ahve only referred to Farage? If so, maybe that's because I am making a point about Farage? I'm not talking about Starmer, or labour or the Tories or the Lib Dems. I'm using facts to back up my view that Farage isn't in politics to improve the lives of the disadvantaged.

Sometimes in your rush to appear clever, you do make yourself look rather foolish.

[swaledale]

I think my point was more that it's blatant unattributed plagiarism. Purely by chance cut from an article I read in the original very recently, so it was fresh in my mind.

I don't dispute the validity of questions about Farage and others political funding, but I've always thought it was a forum rule that sources were acknowledged (some sort of IP breach protection for FM?)

BUT it's hardly a surprise, all political campaigns are run on the back of donors who have vested interests at heart. And it's disclosed, which is refreshing. So is it necessarily wrong or is it just that financial support for a candidate that the author doesn't like makes it wrong? The politics of envy ?

No you were trying to be clever, as is your usual approach and rather spectacularly failed. All the information is publicly available I merely saved myself from retyping it. The article merely highlights the information, I added my own view as what that information shows.

But you failed to grasp the point being made here, which is that " man of the people" and anti "elite" Farage is being funded by people and or organisations that on the face of it are at odds with his political aims and those of Reform.

But clerly your too dim to understand that?

[swaledale]

Fair enough…but if that was your point you didn’t make it very well as the majority of your post didn’t mention plagiarism, but was trying to somehow square the circle with mention of Starmer’s Taylor Swift tickets and portray Swale as some sort of propogandist.

I’d suggest we ALL plagiarise to an extent, otherwise this forum would just be a collection of attachments, and it’s hardly the ‘politics of envy’ to expose the questionable behaviour of an MP…but then I remember you defending Boris Johnson and telling us all what a ‘nice chap’ he was.

Hardly RA, for a start the information I've posted is merely repeating the publicly available information, I'm not plagiarising someone else's views.

If GP thinks being funded by dodgy billionaires with extreme right wing views is normal, then he doesn't really understand what's going on here.

[swaledale]

ausschneiden und einfügen

I see the you have "good" German syndrome. Shame GP has made himself look a fool, but there we are, pearls before swine and all that.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Like shooting fish in a barrel

[Andy_Faber]

I see the you have "good" German syndrome. Shame GP has made himself look a fool, but there we are, pearls before swine and all that.

I’ve worked out where you get your strange phraseology and constant Nazi references from - youre just lifting them from the words and activist tactics of someone else! That’s just plagiarism in another form! No I’m not naming names you already know of course. Try to be original, I’m sure that unlike the dim, thick and foolish amongst us you have it in you.

[ramAnag]

For clarification, to return to topic and, as was the original intention of the thread, keep all the politics (rather than the ‘bitching’) in one place…

The BBC revealed yesterday that last year GBNews paid Farage’s company - ‘Thorn in the Side Ltd’ - £97,928.40.
Apparently he also receives £4000 per month from the Daily Telegraph and was paid £1551.29 from ‘X’ (Twitter) and £853 from Meta.

This is all in addition to his £91,346 MP’s salary.

Of course for much, if not all, of the time Farage was receiving such income from GBNews he wasn’t an MP however this should all surely raise questions over a) whether already well rewarded public ‘servants’ should be allowed access to second (or even 3rd & 4th) incomes and b) the links between elected politicians, or ‘wannabe’ elected politicians, and the media.

[Andy_Faber]

For clarification, to return to topic and, as was the original intention of the thread, keep all the politics (rather than the ‘bitching’) in one place…

The BBC revealed yesterday that last year GBNews paid Farage’s company - ‘Thorn in the Side Ltd’ - £97,928.40.
Apparently he also receives £4000 per month from the Daily Telegraph and was paid £1551.29 from ‘X’ (Twitter) and £853 from Meta.

This is all in addition to his £91,346 MP’s salary.

Of course for much, if not all, of the time Farage was receiving such income from GBNews he wasn’t an MP however this should all surely raise questions over a) whether already well rewarded public ‘servants’ should be allowed access to second (or even 3rd & 4th) incomes and b) the links between elected politicians, or ‘wannabe’ elected politicians, and the media.

Personally I don't think any serving politicians (MPs or those in other positions of political influence) should be paid for media exposure where that media relates to political activities (and I mean as a commentator, not an interviewee), but second jobs of other sorts I'm OK with, I can exercise my level of agreement on that score at the ballot box

Prior to his election to parliament, good luck to the fellah!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Although this rather sounds like bitching about Farage making money for himself. Just like any other working person in the country has the right to do - for so long as it's legal.

But turning to the generalities, there is a question here about whether MPs should have multiple jobs outside parliament. Of course if they didn't, then the taxpayer would have to pay them much more, so it's to the exchequers benefit that they do: after all 90k pa is barely more than train drivers are getting - and would you want Mick Lynch to running the country (cue shouts of "he'd make a better job of it than the Tories")?

I wonder how many MPs would resign if they were unable to have a second job? Around 200 had second jobs in the last parliament, but with the high recent turnover in MPs that may be different now.

In a perfect world then, being an MP should be ones sole job, enabling the MP to focus on what he/she/they/it/choose your ptronoun was/were elected to do, so we'd need to shake that money tree some more - although with the pay rises being handed out in the public sector most of the leaves will have fallen off that tree soon (if there were any there to start with).

On subject of which, I heard one of the most ridiculous arguments in favour of high pay settlements on the radio a couple of days ago. Evidently it's OK to give out these settlements because "it's self funding as the Treasury gets it all back in higher taxes from the recipients". Now it will get some back I grant, but I've not seen much evidence of 100% tax rate in this country....yet!

[SithHappens]

Must be galling for those hard working people who has shops and cars smashed up in his riots though.

[ramAnag]

Although this rather sounds like bitching about Farage making money for himself. Just like any other working person in the country has the right to do - for so long as it's legal.

But turning to the generalities, there is a question here about whether MPs should have multiple jobs outside parliament. Of course if they didn't, then the taxpayer would have to pay them much more, so it's to the exchequers benefit that they do: after all 90k pa is barely more than train drivers are getting - and would you want Mick Lynch to running the country (cue shouts of "he'd make a better job of it than the Tories")?

I wonder how many MPs would resign if they were unable to have a second job? Around 200 had second jobs in the last parliament, but with the high recent turnover in MPs that may be different now.

In a perfect world then, being an MP should be ones sole job, enabling the MP to focus on what he/she/they/it/choose your ptronoun was/were elected to do, so we'd need to shake that money tree some more - although with the pay rises being handed out in the public sector most of the leaves will have fallen off that tree soon (if there were any there to start with).

On subject of which, I heard one of the most ridiculous arguments in favour of high pay settlements on the radio a couple of days ago. Evidently it's OK to give out these settlements because "it's self funding as the Treasury gets it all back in higher taxes from the recipients". Now it will get some back I grant, but I've not seen much evidence of 100% tax rate in this country....yet!

It’s not ‘bitching’ at all, GP. It’s a simple question of whether an MP can be doing his job properly if he has such time to devote to other income related activities. Can imagine your response if a teacher/doctor/police inspector was found to be committing hours per week to a second job.

I’d prefer to live in a country run by Mick Lynch than travel on a train driven by Farage, Johnson or Truss…and £90k (plus expenses) seems quite a lot to me. Maybe one of us is a little out of touch.

Any MP’s who’d resign if they were unable to do a second job shouldn’t be a source of concern imo. Better off without them.

Agree that ‘being an MP should be one’s sole job’ and that the argument cited in your final paragraph is ‘ridiculous’.

[Andy_Faber]

Can imagine your response if a teacher/doctor/police inspector was found to be committing hours per week to a second job.

All my teacher and doctor friends have friends have second jobs.

[ramAnag]

All my teacher and doctor friends have friends have second jobs.

Really? Slightly confusing sentence…but I’m amazed and if that’s the case I’d suggest they a) aren’t doing their (full time) jobs properly and b) have no business complaining about being overworked which, in my experience, many teachers are…and for a lot less than MP’s receive.

P.S. Or maybe it’s a double bluff and you don’t actually have any ‘teacher and doctor friends’…or maybe just one of each.

P.P.S. Seriously…I think the average current UK salary is somewhere between £35-36k. If MP’s can’t be satisfied, while representing their constituents, on approaching three times that amount then they’re in the wrong job for the wrong reasons…imo.