NPR

dpedin wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 10:19 am

SaintK wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 10:05 am

I like neeps wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 8:55 am https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/ ... dApp_Other

Boris Johnson tightly controlling access for interviews makes Laura's "just an accident" claim even less believable.

He's got enough lies and falsehoods on record already.
It's ok though he's got an in-depth interview with the Telegraph's Camilla Tominey on GB News tomorrow. I'm sure she'll give her colleague a full hard hitting interrogation.

The Fat Slug was getting rattled by Tom Bradby on ITV interview, there were a couple of times I thought he was going to lose his temper completely. He seems to expect that folk will bow down to him and take what he says as true whereas Bradby showed little respect and called him out on a number of issues. He is nothing other that a duplicitous, racist, misogynistic, crooked charlatan trying to rewrite history ... he is running Truss close for one of the worst inept PMs in history, and there are a good few contenders.

The political historian, Anthony Seldon, who has written biographies of all the PMs since Thatcher and is generally thought to be the leading authority on UK PMs, reckoned that Johnson was a worse PM than Truss, even though his biography of her is titled "Truss at 10 - How Not to be a Prime Minister". His verdict on both Johnson and Truss was suitable damning:

“Britain has had a procession of underperforming Prime Ministers … Johnson, the subject of the previous book in the series, and now Truss, comfortably outdid them all in their wilful inability to rise to the requirement of thoughtful and responsible stewardship the job entails”

Can always feck off back to Kyiv and wait for that statue.

Might've been the only thing he got right, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Sue Gray has resigned.

It’s been a bit of a shit show to be honest.

sefton wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:08 pm Sue Gray has resigned.

It’s been a bit of a shit show to be honest.

It's almost as if there's been a concerted effort from day one to undermine a Labour Government, aided and abetted by their own naivete in feeding the crocodile (example, Starmer writing in the Sun about "finger-wagging" Net Zero types), plus the eternal battle between the Labour Party and their arch-enemies, other bits of the Labour Party.

Seems only yesterday that even engaging in this non story was childish tittle tattle and borderline blasphemous. What an absolute shambles

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:21 pm Seems only yesterday that even engaging in this non story was childish tittle tattle and borderline blasphemous. What an absolute shambles

Yeah how could the right wing media do this?!

Starmer's approval ratings through the floor, chaos internally, and they've scared businesses with their relentless negativity and u-turns. Was obviously going to happen pre election as they had no plans and were relentlessly negative. No surprises it's followed that way in government.

Also what a joke Sue Gray has been. Talked up as relentlessly thorough and impartial only to whitewash the Johnson investigation and join Labour. Then talked up as an excellent operator and hasn't achieved anything except getting turfed out of her job.

I like neeps wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:28 pm Also what a joke Sue Gray has been. Talked up as relentlessly thorough and impartial only to whitewash the Johnson investigation and join Labour. Then talked up as an excellent operator and hasn't achieved anything except getting turfed out of her job.

Brought in to ensure Labour would be fully ready for government and implementation, appears to have done nothing bar demand a high salary, argue with other staffers, try and get a bung for Casement Park and resign.

Labour just remind me of so much of this country’s C Suite and management class - the kind of people who think saying ‘process’ a lot, having all the right buzzwords and sending a bunch of emails after working hours is leadership

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:49 pm

I like neeps wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:28 pm Also what a joke Sue Gray has been. Talked up as relentlessly thorough and impartial only to whitewash the Johnson investigation and join Labour. Then talked up as an excellent operator and hasn't achieved anything except getting turfed out of her job.

Brought in to ensure Labour would be fully ready for government and implementation, appears to have done nothing bar demand a high salary, argue with other staffers, try and get a bung for Casement Park and resign.

Labour just remind me of so much of this country’s C Suite and management class - the kind of people who think saying ‘process’ a lot, having all the right buzzwords and sending a bunch of emails after working hours is leadership

She was pushed out by Starmer, her envoy of nations role is resign to this post or you're off.

Yeah I agree their ideology is pure managementism, not what anyone wants and not what anyone needs.

She did add some professionalism to Starmer's office, and as someone with actual experience in government, and she really helped build (some) bridges between the (some of) the unions and Starmer. But she's fallen to the wayside from a power struggle relating to access/control around the PM, hardly the first, she'll not be the last, 'twas ever thus in politics and oftentimes little to do with any actual competence

Has she done well? Too soon to tell really.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:21 pm Seems only yesterday that even engaging in this non story was childish tittle tattle and borderline blasphemous. What an absolute shambles

This feels like a call out!

I maintain that right wing media is digging up any old nonsense it can and blowing things out of all proportion. It has been the case since their non-story of Rayner selling a house (which I also said was nonsense and going nowhere), back when they started to realise Labour would win big. The latest is the hysteria over the Chagos Islands deal, when it's quite obvious the "special relationship" means the UK always gets the hind teat when US interests are in play (they want their base, but not on some dodgy basis which plays badly in mineral rich SADC and would provide yet another reason to turn against the US). In right wing media that became utter hysteria about sovereignty and the Falklands, led by Big Dog himself.

With Sue Gray it was obvious some people did not like her, anyone in the role she was in will not be liked by everyone. I said that before she resigned. That doesn't equal some huge faction battle akin to Big Dog/Cummings/Carrie. She's still in the team for one thing. The former NI pub landlord (no prizes for guessing what she was really doing) has a lot of professional connections to NI, she tried to become head of NI's Civil Service prior to the job she had before party gate (where she had to take Case's position for the investigation because he himself was involved). The job she had before party gate, Second Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office in charge of policy on the Union and the constitution, sounds a lot like the one she has now ended up in, the difference being that was a Whitehall position and this is a political job attached to the executive. Could make her more powerful than she was in the similar sounding Whitehall role, or could make her less powerful. Impossible to tell from the outside, but if there's any constitutional reform coming then she remains important. If Starmer rates her on NI and doesn't feel he has anyone else (the Tories were a joke on NI, Karen Bradley when NI secretary admitting she didn't know Protestants mostly voted for unionist parties and Catholics mostly for republican parties and that NI scared her, was a low) and Starmer wants to keep NI's executive running, then she remains important.

There was a time when the right wing press celebrated ousting Mandelson who was/is another of their bogeymen ("Prince of Darkness" etc), over a mortgage deal in New Labour's first term. Then Mandelson came back. Then he fucking kept coming back. He was gone for under a year, Blair made him resign to clear the air, not to get rid of him.

After many days marching, Starmer's special envoy Gray arrives at the Mughal capital of Manchester, informing Sultan Burnham that Starmer's rule is fair and just and as such he would be wise not to resist. Aides whisper reminders to the Sultan in an incomprehensible dialect, of the time early in the special envoy's career spent running a pub in the north of Ireland during one of its many rebellions. The Sultan looks fearful, he knows how the London Khanate has already been supressed into fully supporting Judea and forsaking its love of a united Europe.

I'll give them credit for doing something about the problem, anyway. But it's clearly been a mess and I'm far from convinced she has been unfairly treated.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:15 pm She did add some professionalism to Starmer's office, and as someone with actual experience in government, and she really helped build (some) bridges between the (some of) the unions and Starmer. But she's fallen to the wayside from a power struggle relating to access/control around the PM, hardly the first, she'll not be the last, 'twas ever thus in politics and oftentimes little to do with any actual competence

Has she done well? Too soon to tell really.

I think I agree with most of this, I'm not completely clear what terrible things she has done and was always going to get briefed against in the head teacher role.

Sue Gray is going to get a seat in the Lords so she can effectively carry out this (totally made up) job. And her son has a nice safe seat. At least the cronyism continues unabashed.

I'm not sure how you managed to turn this into a conspiracy but hey, good stuff.

I like neeps wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:28 pm Also what a joke Sue Gray has been. Talked up as relentlessly thorough and impartial only to whitewash the Johnson investigation and join Labour. Then talked up as an excellent operator and hasn't achieved anything except getting turfed out of her job.

So Johnson didn't do any of the things he was acciused of then?

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:26 am I'm not sure how you managed to turn this into a conspiracy but hey, good stuff.

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a continuation of the cronyism we all didn't much like the Tories doing. Get a nice job in the Lords for not doing much and get your family on the public payroll. Not bad work, if you can get it.

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:51 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:26 am I'm not sure how you managed to turn this into a conspiracy but hey, good stuff.

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a continuation of the cronyism we all didn't much like the Tories doing. Get a nice job in the Lords for not doing much and get your family on the public payroll. Not bad work, if you can get it.

This behaviour was pretty standard for New Labour as well, so my low expectations have been met.

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:51 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:26 am I'm not sure how you managed to turn this into a conspiracy but hey, good stuff.

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a continuation of the cronyism we all didn't much like the Tories doing. Get a nice job in the Lords for not doing much and get your family on the public payroll. Not bad work, if you can get it.

Well, for a start the Lords bit is just rumour, but if you think she's not done much I would urge you to compare her career to most of the people in the Lords. Regardless of whether she gets made a peer, she is exactly the sort of person who has been getting cross party approval for peerage for several decades. We can agree that getting apeerage as part of a sweetener is rubbish, of course, but you are over egging it again.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:51 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:26 am I'm not sure how you managed to turn this into a conspiracy but hey, good stuff.

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a continuation of the cronyism we all didn't much like the Tories doing. Get a nice job in the Lords for not doing much and get your family on the public payroll. Not bad work, if you can get it.

Well, for a start the Lords bit is just rumour, but if you think she's not done much I would urge you to compare her career to most of the people in the Lords. Regardless of whether she gets made a peer, she is exactly the sort of person who has been getting cross party approval for peerage for several decades. We can agree that getting apeerage as part of a sweetener is rubbish, of course, but you are over egging it again.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Its Neeps, who has been suffering from Starmer Derangement Syndrome ever since Starmer took over from Corbyn. Starmer could end World poverty, solve the Middle East crisis and walk on water and Neeps would still find something to moan about.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

Meanwhile, The Times is aghast at the audacity of Angela Rayner buying a suit for her boyfriend. With her own money, no less! Is a boiler suit and donkey jacket not good enough for these Socialists?

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

Labour have a hilarious amount of nepotism for a group allegedly ideologically opposed to such things

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

He also got a juicy 10k donation from Starmer's sugar daddy Lord Ali, also because of Conlon's limitless talents no doubts.

The reality JMK wouldn't think there was no nepotism involved if it was a Tory candidate I reckon.

As would a number of posters who got very upset when the Tories did these sort of things. Oh well.

Lobby wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:57 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:51 am

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a continuation of the cronyism we all didn't much like the Tories doing. Get a nice job in the Lords for not doing much and get your family on the public payroll. Not bad work, if you can get it.

Well, for a start the Lords bit is just rumour, but if you think she's not done much I would urge you to compare her career to most of the people in the Lords. Regardless of whether she gets made a peer, she is exactly the sort of person who has been getting cross party approval for peerage for several decades. We can agree that getting apeerage as part of a sweetener is rubbish, of course, but you are over egging it again.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Its Neeps, who has been suffering from Starmer Derangement Syndrome ever since Starmer took over from Corbyn. Starmer could end World poverty, solve the Middle East crisis and walk on water and Neeps would still find something to moan about.

Considering his policy platforms and dreadful start in government he won't achieve any of that and very little of much else so fortunately I don't have worry.

Gone from historic majority to reset in what 100 days? Very disappointing you have to say.

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:05 pm

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

He also got a juicy 10k donation from Starmer's sugar daddy Lord Ali, also because of Conlon's limitless talents no doubts.

The reality JMK wouldn't think there was no nepotism involved if it was a Tory candidate I reckon.

As would a number of posters who got very upset when the Tories did these sort of things. Oh well.

This is properly silly. His constituency received funds from a Labour donor who has donated half a million quid. It wasn't even a personal donation to him or a gift, both things that Alli clearly has no issue with dishing out. As for the nepotism, well, he's been part of the Labour movement for a lot longer than Sue has, so perhaps it's the other way round?

What is it you think is wrong with his constituency party - in a constituency that was in Tory hands at the time, six months before the election - receiving funds from a party donor? Are you claiming Gray Jr redirected these funds to himself for personal use? If so, that is huge news and you should definitely take your evidence to the papers.

Because otherwise you're just doing the useful idiot thing again where you repeat the breathless accusations of the Mail and the Telegraph without stopping to engage your brain for a second and realising that accusations of impropriety made by bad actors are not evidence of such.

I know you're desperate to make out that actually you're the only one with any integrity here, but it's hysterical that you're accusing other people of having party blinkers on when you're trotting out any old shit as long as it's anti the people you hate. Get a grip, ffs.

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

From when he was selected:

According to Jill Rutter, an associate fellow at thinktank British Future, Conlon has been active in the party for longer than his mother.
...

Conlon lists himself on his website as vice-chair of Lewisham West and Penge constituency Labour party, national chair of the Labour party Irish Society and a disabilities officer at the Communication Workers Union.

Just not even the slightest bit of intellectual rigour being applied by you guys here

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:59 pm

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the accusation is with regards to her son. He is an MP and won his seat. What did I miss?

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

From when he was selected:

According to Jill Rutter, an associate fellow at thinktank British Future, Conlon has been active in the party for longer than his mother.
...

Conlon lists himself on his website as vice-chair of Lewisham West and Penge constituency Labour party, national chair of the Labour party Irish Society and a disabilities officer at the Communication Workers Union.

Just not even the slightest bit of intellectual rigour being applied by you guys here

Oh wow, he had already reached the giddy heights of being vice-chair of his constituency Labour party? Is that a rare level of achievement for a prospective parliamentary candidate? (There are apparently six members at the equivalent level in the Executive Committee of each constituency Labour party, and that's before we even start looking at the 6500 local councillors etc., so I would suspect not).

robmatic wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 7:52 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:59 pm

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm

Child of senior Labour figure is subsequently selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate? You think there was no nepotism there?

I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

From when he was selected:

According to Jill Rutter, an associate fellow at thinktank British Future, Conlon has been active in the party for longer than his mother.
...

Conlon lists himself on his website as vice-chair of Lewisham West and Penge constituency Labour party, national chair of the Labour party Irish Society and a disabilities officer at the Communication Workers Union.

Just not even the slightest bit of intellectual rigour being applied by you guys here

Oh wow, he had already reached the giddy heights of being vice-chair of his constituency Labour party? Is that a rare level of achievement for a prospective parliamentary candidate? (There are apparently six members at the equivalent level in the Executive Committee of each constituency Labour party, and that's before we even start looking at the 6500 local councillors etc., so I would suspect not).

It shows he was rising the ranks in the party and ticked a lot of boxes (including the diversity one, given his disability).

Before Sue Gray joined Labour.

What kind of nepotism is it when you prove yourself before a family member joins the organisation and are a good fit for the local job you end up being given?

He was selected as constituency candidate in a run off against 4 others in late 2022. Long before there was any thought about a general election. So no parachute required.
The Tory press have conveniently not bothered in reporting the actual facts.

SaintK wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 8:09 am He was selected as constituency candidate in a run off against 4 others in late 2022. Long before there was any thought about a general election. So no parachute required.
The Tory press have conveniently not bothered in reporting the actual facts.

Extremely weird how otherwise smart people are so desperate to abandon all critical thinking in favour of breathlessly repeating the smear du jour

I'd say most are just very jaded by many years of craven behaviour by politicians, and a slight tone-deafness in taking expensive and swanky perks is not a convincing way of evidencing changes to behaviour.

Like I said:

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm
I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

Hal Jordan wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 1:12 pm Meanwhile, The Times is aghast at the audacity of Angela Rayner buying a suit for her boyfriend. With her own money, no less! Is a boiler suit and donkey jacket not good enough for these Socialists?

There has been a noticeable decline in the standard of The Times, it is moving towards that other Murdoch title The Sun. Nowhere near The Telegraph yet, but that's the direction.

The story of supposed Labour corruption, is now that MPs are using their own money to buy things they want to buy. Sky News this morning, Burley (her salary is reported to be around £500k) was asking cabinet minister Louise Haigh questions in serious tones like she's Perry Mason, about where she got the clothes she was wearing. From Vined apparently (ie second hand). Burley probably earns the same amount as Starmer/Gray/Haigh combined, she is using interview time on total bullshit, as if the UK has no transport issues she could've asked the transport minister about (HS2? Cost of trains? Most towns/cities outside London having increasingly substandard public transport compared to Western European peer nations?).

A lot going on with this "Labour corruption" story now: Partisan media, unserious overpaid journalists, gossip style political reporting, equating real Tory corruption with this nonsense ending up at "they're all the same", no discussion of anything of consequence because the media has to go full Perry Mason on how Rayner spends her own money and if Haigh uses her own money to buy her clothes on Vinted.

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 11:10 am Sky News this morning, Burley (her salary is reported to be around £500k) was asking cabinet minister Louise Haigh questions in serious tones like she's Perry Mason, about where she got the clothes she was wearing.

Pretty sure Sky News readers get all their work clothes for free.

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 11:15 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 11:10 am Sky News this morning, Burley (her salary is reported to be around £500k) was asking cabinet minister Louise Haigh questions in serious tones like she's Perry Mason, about where she got the clothes she was wearing.

Pretty sure Sky News readers get all their work clothes for free.

Politicians need to start arguing back against these utter cunts, really forcefully, Tories too not just Labour.

The reason they always ask about tax rises, is because most of them are earning £250k+, someone like Burley is on multiples what the PM earns. Of course they always make sure to ask about tax rises.

The Times 2024, probably ...

Left wing person and well off = champagne socialist, not a real proud socialist.
Left wing person and poor = politics of envy, they are left wing because they want what others have, if they were wealthy they would be Tory.

Weeks of "they're not buying their own clothes = corruption".
Then "they're buying their own clothes = maybe corruption".

Who is The Times editor again? Tony Gallagher, started as a Daily Mail reporter in 1990, ended up as an editor. Then onto The Torygraph in 2006 as head of news and deputy editor, he was the one leading the expenses scandal coverage (which was a Torygraph scoop that helped the Tories, as "they're all the same" always does), became editor in 2009. Went back to the Daily Mail in 2015 as deputy editor. Then editor of the The Sun from 2015 to 2020, when he became Times deputy editor. In 2022 when acting as Times editor, he deleted an entire article critical of The Big Dog, Gallagher is a jogging partner of Big Dog's. He was rewarded for this by Murdoch corp, with editor of The Times.

And that is why The Times is becoming tabloid slop.

Reckon he earns more or less than the PM?

robmatic wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 9:03 am Like I said:

robmatic wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:18 pm
I suppose like all the other spouses and children of Labour establishment figures who become Labour MPs he could just be a really strong interview candidate who stood out in the rigorously meritocratic selection process.

Saying it twice doesn't make it any less stupid. Sue Gray wasn't a Labour establishment figure when this happened.

Also, just for the hell of it, are we pretending that having contacts and knowing the right people hasn't formed the basis of our political system for a few hundred years? Being the son of someone respected in politics is going to be a boon. That's inarguable.

Pretending there's the stench of corruption over the selection and success of a politician because a family member later joined the party is desperate stuff, though.

The Times 2022:
Big Dog tried to appoint his own future wife as chief of staff when he was foreign secretary. Delete the story. No corruption because Big Dog asked his friend editing The Times to delete it. The Mail rewrote the same story, then also deleted it. The story has no super injunction, it was even mentioned as a fact in a book written by Tory mega donor Ashcroft. It is also supported by Cummings and others. Cummings has said there were other times Big Dog tried to install Carrie into government jobs. Nothing to see, no corruption.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nson-story

The Times 2024:
PROUD SOCIALIST RAYNER IS BUYING HER OWN FUCKING CLOTHES!!!!

Paper of record to paper of tabloid slop.