If an employer offered me 16k to leave I’d happily take it. If they then offered me my job back, I’d probably go. If they then asked for the 16k they paid me, they can get fucked.
At this point it’s not even the same employer. Starmer is gone, Burnham is the employer now.
Absolutely no obligation whatsoever. I think those arguing differently either don’t understand or are holding this person to a higher moral standard than they would others or themselves.
Well quite but nobody would be very likely to notice. But if you you lived in Manchester and worked in London and got the sack from your job as housing secretary for avoiding tax on your nice new flat in Brighton, copped the sixteen grand payoff and was reappointed to housing secretary within a year that’s a bit different isn’t it?
Not really, why would it change my decision? If I was sacked, paid, rehired to the exact same job I’m not giving the money back. I don’t think you would, I don’t think you should. Why would it be different?
Surely the failure was in the tax avoidance? Or, the failure is in the golden parachutes politicians seem to get?
edited for clarity: Of course the sticking point exists in both the tax avoidance & reward for failure and of course I wouldn’t turn down the cash if it were me. But she and hypothetical us aren’t in the same position. Rules must apply more strictly to custodians & enforcers of those same rules
So we mostly agree then. Neither of us would have acted any different about the 16k then. The 16k is a complete non-issue.
Rules must apply more strictly to custodians & enforcers of those same rules
What should and what is are rarely the same. To be politically aware is to be constantly confronted between the difference of what should, and what is.
I dunno, in the face of 5+ million (Reform), duck motes (Conservative), and an actual genocide (Labour), this feel like such a strange thing to devote this much energy to.
Yeah probably. If I found a score on the pavement I wouldn’t stick up any posters about it. 16k in notes? I might have that as well, no need to trouble the constabulary
should/is difference
This is where we diverge. Enforcers of ‘should’ even if they just recently inherited the responsibility should do as their own rules oblige them to do
strange thing to devote this much energy to
It’s the subject of the post. I’ll comment about other matters on other posts, energy allowing. I can’t always be bothered
This is where we diverge. Enforcers of ‘should’ even if they just recently inherited the responsibility should do as their own rules oblige them to do
Didn’t I say that she should have paid the tax? That’s what their own rules oblige them to do. I think we agree on this point too. Could you expand on why you think we diverge here?
If I found a score on the pavement I wouldn’t stick up any posters about it. 16k in notes? I might have that as well, no need to trouble the constabulary
You don’t think this happened. You don’t think this is analogous to what happend. If you were sacked from a job, given 16k, rehired for the exact same job, I wouldn’t expect you to give the 16k back.
Of course the sticking point exists in both the tax avoidance & reward for failure and of course I wouldn’t turn down the cash if it were me.
Why craft farcical hypotheticals about a point you already conceded?
It’s very possible that it’s late and i’m talking a lot of shit. But I think the point was that if you are appointed housing secretary and you get sacked for fucking up your own housing affairs, then you get paid off to the tune of sixteen grand (still on backbench salary mind you), then less than a year later you’re made housing secretary again, it looks pretty grim to keep the cash and the flat and go i’m alright cunts, how about you?
Agreed, but I think the problem is all the stuff before paying the 16k back. We have already agreed on this. She should have paid the tax. The golden parachute was ridiculous.
Paying the 16k back is such a non-issue. I wouldn’t act differently about the 16k, you wouldn’t act differently about the 16k. Even the quantity, 16k, is such small potatoes when it comes to dodgy politician’s finances.
If an employer offered me 16k to leave I’d happily take it. If they then offered me my job back, I’d probably go. If they then asked for the 16k they paid me, they can get fucked.
At this point it’s not even the same employer. Starmer is gone, Burnham is the employer now.
Absolutely no obligation whatsoever. I think those arguing differently either don’t understand or are holding this person to a higher moral standard than they would others or themselves.
Well quite but nobody would be very likely to notice. But if you you lived in Manchester and worked in London and got the sack from your job as housing secretary for avoiding tax on your nice new flat in Brighton, copped the sixteen grand payoff and was reappointed to housing secretary within a year that’s a bit different isn’t it?
Not really, why would it change my decision? If I was sacked, paid, rehired to the exact same job I’m not giving the money back. I don’t think you would, I don’t think you should. Why would it be different?
Surely the failure was in the tax avoidance? Or, the failure is in the golden parachutes politicians seem to get?
edited for clarity: Of course the sticking point exists in both the tax avoidance & reward for failure and of course I wouldn’t turn down the cash if it were me. But she and hypothetical us aren’t in the same position. Rules must apply more strictly to custodians & enforcers of those same rules
So we mostly agree then. Neither of us would have acted any different about the 16k then. The 16k is a complete non-issue.
What should and what is are rarely the same. To be politically aware is to be constantly confronted between the difference of what should, and what is.
I dunno, in the face of 5+ million (Reform), duck motes (Conservative), and an actual genocide (Labour), this feel like such a strange thing to devote this much energy to.
Yeah probably. If I found a score on the pavement I wouldn’t stick up any posters about it. 16k in notes? I might have that as well, no need to trouble the constabulary
This is where we diverge. Enforcers of ‘should’ even if they just recently inherited the responsibility should do as their own rules oblige them to do
It’s the subject of the post. I’ll comment about other matters on other posts, energy allowing. I can’t always be bothered
Didn’t I say that she should have paid the tax? That’s what their own rules oblige them to do. I think we agree on this point too. Could you expand on why you think we diverge here?
You don’t think this happened. You don’t think this is analogous to what happend. If you were sacked from a job, given 16k, rehired for the exact same job, I wouldn’t expect you to give the 16k back.
Why craft farcical hypotheticals about a point you already conceded?
It’s very possible that it’s late and i’m talking a lot of shit. But I think the point was that if you are appointed housing secretary and you get sacked for fucking up your own housing affairs, then you get paid off to the tune of sixteen grand (still on backbench salary mind you), then less than a year later you’re made housing secretary again, it looks pretty grim to keep the cash and the flat and go i’m alright cunts, how about you?
Agreed, but I think the problem is all the stuff before paying the 16k back. We have already agreed on this. She should have paid the tax. The golden parachute was ridiculous.
Paying the 16k back is such a non-issue. I wouldn’t act differently about the 16k, you wouldn’t act differently about the 16k. Even the quantity, 16k, is such small potatoes when it comes to dodgy politician’s finances.