Starmer's vision quest

[AuroraSaab]

I think it's the accepting of such freebies or donations at all that's the issue, not the legality of it. Here is defending it again:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...gests-he-will-continue-accepting-donors-gifts

Why can't he pay for his own posh hospitality ticket? Loads of people on his income do.

If you want to be seen as above corruption and as rejecting allegations of undue influence you have to be prepared to make sacrifices. That might mean buying your own Arsenal ticket or getting your designer glasses at Speccy4eyes.com like everybody else.

 

[BoldonLad]

Not really. We are comparing a legal donation made late due to lack of clarity on the rules with the very illegal donations received by previous Prime Ministers.

But, he didnt just accept a "legal donation" and register it late, he gave Lord Ali a Downing Street pass (that we know of). Same trough, different pigs.

 

[fozy tornip]

I don't believe that at any point he has complained about not having a clothes allowance.

Because he has one, no?
Oughtn't we at least to wait until Waheed Ali revokes Starmer's wife's clothes allowance before we risk a view about whether or not Starmer mithers about not having a wife's clothes allowance?

 

[icowden]

Because he has one, no?

No because he didn't complain. It was @winjim who stated that

I'm struggling to pay my mortgage and worried that I'm going to have to sell my house, so forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic towards someone on five times my salary complaining that they don't have a clothes allowance for their spouse.

I just pointed out that at no point has Starmer complained that he doesn't have a clothes allowance for his spouse. That's made up.
If we are going to criticise him then lets at least criticise him for things he has actually done.

 

[AndyRM]

I get all this pigs in the trough chat, but really what was anyone expecting?

Not a fan of Starmer by any means, but as @icowden has noted he's had a couple of months.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

 

[Beebo]

Starmer has done loads of Pro Bono work in the past. He could have made millions a private lawyer but chose the public prosecutor route.
He’s hardly the type to be buying £500 wallpaper. He isn’t flashy.
He’s made a mistake on this one, but if the family wore sports direct tracksuits the Daily Mail fashion police would be the first to comment.

 

[winjim]

No because he didn't complain. It was @winjim who stated that

I just pointed out that at no point has Starmer complained that he doesn't have a clothes allowance for his spouse. That's made up.
If we are going to criticise him then lets at least criticise him for things he has actually done.

It's not made up as such. It's a reference to Lammy's comments as I thought I'd made clear. Either way, I still don't have any sympathy for him and I don't think he should be accepting large donations towards his wife's wardrobe.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes. Starmer's only had power for what 8 weeks? I suggest we give him a chance to enact some policy and to see the result of it before we condemn the chap outright. At the moment all we have is petty nonsense like late declaration of expenses.

There is no reason why he cannot be given some time before outright condemnation of his early policies while at the same time be criticised for early signs of apparent greed and expense failings. After all, he had plenty of time and experience as Leader of the Opposition to see and criticise the actions of greedy politicians on the other side.

Late declaration is often only non-declaration that has been found out and criticised.

This is far from a resigning offence, and compared to many others by politicians is relatively small, but it is an early warning for him about not looking like just another grasping politician.

 

[BoldonLad]

Starmer has done loads of Pro Bono work in the past. He could have made millions a private lawyer but chose the public prosecutor route.
He’s hardly the type to be buying £500 wallpaper. He isn’t flashy.
He’s made a mistake on this one, but if the family wore sports direct tracksuits the Daily Mail fashion police would be the first to comment.

I think almost half a million a year would put them in at least designer track suits

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals

 

[Beebo]

I think almost half a million a year would put them in at least designer track suits

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals

£275k was from a one off sale of agricultural land he bought for his mother.

Probably selling it before the capital gains tax goes up. 😁

 

[Rusty Nails]

It wasn't a donkey jacket, it was a mid-length woollen overcoat bought by his wife at Harrods. He was complimented on it by the then Queen Mother.

I bow to your knowledge of high fashion, even though as someone who actually owned a donkey jacket I was not being literal. His was more like the car coats my father wore.

The Queen Mother's comments were possibly due to the effects of one too many gin and dubonnets.

 

[Ian H]

I bow to your knowledge of high fashion, even though as someone who actually owned a donkey jacket I was not being literal. His was more like the car coats my father wore.

The Queen Mother's comments were possibly due to the effects of one too many gin and dubonnets.

Jill Craigie was extremely annoyed by the tabloids' comments.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Jill Craigie was extremely annoyed by the tabloids' comments.

I'm sure she was. Having bought clothes in Harrods one doesn't expect to be compare to a common labourer no matter how much of a socialist one is.

 

[Ian H]

I'm sure she was. Having bought clothes in Harrods one doesn't expect to be compare to a common labourer no matter how much of a socialist one is.

Nothing to do with that. She was annoyed that Foot was called disrespectful for wearing inappropriate attire. I don't recall Michael Foot himself ever commenting.

 

[Wobblers]

I agree. As does the Parliamentary Watchdog who have now said there will be no investigation. The PM has stated that his team reached out for advice as to what declaration should be made and that rules are being followed. He was initially told that they did not need declaring and then approached the parlimentary authorities to make a declaration after being given updated advice on what needed to be registered.

Presumably you agree with Andrew Griffith:-

Of course Griffith himself would never dream of claiming expenses or donations as he has a net worth of over £20 million and lives in a £9.5 million mansion. Let me do a quick check...

• 2020 - just over £200,000 of expenses
• 2021 - just over £220,000 of expenses
• 2022 - just over £232,000 of expenses

Now to be fair that does include his staffing. He has to get by on a senior parliamentary assistant, three parliamentary assistants, 2 interns, two chiefs of staff, a case worker, an admin officer and an office manager.

Luckily he doesn't take donations...

Oh hang on...

• August £40,000 of donations
• April £16,000 of donations plus rental income from his second home and his third home

Now I will grant you that Starmer does seem to get through a *lot* of clothes having declared £16k for clothing back in May, £2.5k for glasses and a nice holiday worth £20k in August from Lord Alli. Other than that Starmer is a bit of an amateur. No second or third house to rent out, and mostly donations for football and theatre tickets. He even returned a £164,000 book advance as he gave up writing his book.
But what of his office costs? Well Lord Alli has paid for quite a bit of those - about £30k over the year. But presumably, as Prime Minister and before that leader of the opposition, he must have to have many more staff than non-entity Griffith?

• 2020 - just over £165,000 of expenses
• 2021 - just over £206,000 of expenses
• 2022 - just over £248,000 of expenses

Finally in 2022 he managed to claim more for his office staff than Griffith, although he only had 8 members of staff to Griffith's 11, so he pays his staff better too.

If "the Tories are worse" is your best argument perhaps you ought to have a rethink.

Starmer, let me remind you, campaigned on a platform of how he was above the sheer greed of the Tories. He specifically talked about how important it was to improve the standing of politicians, and regain the respect of the electorate. Now, after a mere eight weeks in office, questions are already been raised about donations. And, no, if you need to get the Parliamentary Watchdog to find for you, you've already lost the PR battle. If he really wants to regain the trust of the people, he needs to be whiter than white. Insisting that he's stuck to the rules simply looks weaselly, especially for someone whose professional career depended on an indepth knowledge of the rules - and their loopholes.