the other thing i want to know, because it makes no economic sense, is, why is Starmer chasing a trade deal with the USA when the first countries he ****ed up were Canada and Mexico, who both have trade deals

It is frustrating that people seem unable to admit a mistake or deviate from one, cognitive dissonance I expect. Flipping my vote to Labour at the last GE is one of the daftest things I've done in recent memory and it'll be flipping straight back to SNP at the next election -- as polling suggests is the case for a huge number in Scotland. They can have as many campervans as they want. I don't like some of their "progressive" (sic) policies but I'll accept them over trying to balance the books by stripping money away from disabled people :facepalm:. Politics is so grim currently.

That said - I still maintain that the only thing after than sticking to one's guns with unwavering excuses for Labour, is deciding that flipping to bloody Reform will fix things. People will find out but they'll never learn.

That's the issue the US is creating for itself at the moment - how can anyone make a viable trade deal with them when they know they'll tear them up on a whim? They're that pal you'd never lend a tenner to because you know they're a liability and their promises aren't worth the breath they used to make them.

Unfortunately you are right, we are in an era of career politicians, I can point at Boris who only came down on the side of Brexit to further his own career, Farage et al are the same, Starmer said all the right things until he came into power, one of the most stand outs is him sitting saying it was unacceptable that someone would have to ride around on a bus to avoid being in a cold home, but that seems to have suddenly become acceptable, anyone who saw his reaction to Reeves after she had delivered her speech cutting benefits to the most needy by patting her shoulder and smiling and laughing should take note.... the majority of the people in government now are not in it ...to turn the page...serve the country....they are in it for what they can get for themselves...hard to see how we can turn that round at this stage

Snout firmly in the trough

Rachel Reeves accepted theatre tickets worth £276 over the Christmas period, according to reports.

The Chancellor, who is paid £67,505 on top of her £91,346 MP’s salary, declared that she had received free tickets for Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest and an adaptation of Neil Streatfield’s Ballet Shoes at the National Theatre on December 27, according to the Daily Mail.

It comes days after it emerged she had accepted free tickets to watch Sabrina Carpenter earlier this month.

I'm not particularly bothered by "freebies" that don't some from the taxpayer to be fair, it's not a particularly unusual thing in normal business and the cost is misleading (yes the tickets sold may cost £250+, but that doesn't mean giving them away free actually costs £250+, if that makes sense).

Paying for (and fuelling) unnecessary 2nd homes, unreasonably expensive daily expenses (£100 for lunch etc.) that come from govt. coffers is much more of a concern.

A theatre or venue (privately owned) choosing off their own back to give away tickets is their own business and a slippery slope to start scrutinising.

any private business i worked for had strict limits on what could be accepted as a gift, and it was generally in the few quid area, ie a token gift rather than being anything substantial. I don't think it's unreasonable for MP's to have similar guidelines

They do have guidelines, I believe it's £300 limit but the more important thing is whether or not the gift generates a conflict of interests (could amount to a bribe) -- the reason matters more than the value, e.g. if the politician receiving the gift has influence over, say, a venue being shut down or decreasing fees or red tape. If they don't it's less ethically murky. Again I'm not saying it's ideal but for me it's at the lesser end of "MP scandal" - way less concerning than 2nd homes and utilities (which often come well into 5-figures, never mind a few hundred quid).

I think in the current climate it is immoral, snatching money off the poor while indulging themselves, I agree with all the above though and I would add in the subsidised restaurant and bar in the commons all should be got rid of

I mean read the room Rachel

By the time the next election is due, it's not inconceivable that we could be at war. If that happens, labour will be in power until it's over. We may need to buckle down for a long time

I agree it's definitely at the very least bad optics - I would much rather they keep their theatre trips and NOT strip down benefits for disabled people than the other way round, though.

I just don't see us being at "that kind of" war - i.e. we'd have to be under direct attack for them to legally prolong parliament ... it happened during WW2 but isn't "the norm" for wartime, the justification has to be that it's a danger to the population or not possible to hold fair elections (risk of attack). It's not just a "convenience" and there are several newer pieces of legislation that would make it extremely difficult for them to do it.

And to be frank... if we're under that sort of direct attack, i.e. ordinance hitting UK cities, the world is ****ed and none of it really matters. It would effectively mean that the entirety of Western Europe has fallen lol.

Wouldn't it be nice just for once to have politicians say yes I accept your freebie but I will donate the cost to a food bank or a homeless shelter....just once....