Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
Quite possible. There was speculation in one of the papers that a peerage was dangled.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
Most of the freebies to you and I are taxable benefits in kind. So even if we were gifted them we have to pay tax on them.
Indeed, seems a very odd convention from HMRC to treat MP bribes gifts as tax free when their status is crystal clear for the rest of us. Can add tax dodging to Kier's list of venality.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
If she had done a year or two, maybe I could see that as an excuse. 3 months, nope. She packed in her gold plated civil service job for this. She has lost a civil war that has been widely reported / leaked into the paper from day one.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
Corbyn had a Paul Smith makeover iirc. Don't know who paid. Perhaps a whip round of the regulars at Ye Olde Progressive Arms in Islington.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
If you are LoTO or in the Shadow Cabinet, or frankly any MP, it is literally your day job. I take your point for those not yet in the Commons but you could fix that with a Party “salary” from donations.
I thought Donald Trump said at the RNC he'd never talk about the assassination attempt again?
He’s just trying to milk some sympathy . The whole rally was vomit inducing especially when Ava Maria was sung . Musk looked unhinged and had the gall to accuse the Dems of trying to stop people voting .
To the tune of the MAGA theme song (or whatever it's called!):
"That stupid idiot Donald Gonna lose the election again"
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
If Labour's central campaign team think that the most effective use of 20K of campaign funds is "make sure the leader has a wardrobe that means he looks the part of a leader-in-waiting", why should that be blocked? It might very well swing more votes overall than a couple of dozen extra billboard ads...
(Snip good stuff)
Because it's personal, for him. He gets to keep the wardrobe afterwards, which should last him years. It's also utterly unauthentic if these aren't the clothes he normally wears. And if they are, he should pay for them.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
All the front line campaigners are on a minimum of £80k and will want and have them anyway…..
All the front line campaigners are not necessarily on £80k. If you presume politicians will pay for their own stuff, then you get something like the US system where politicians are overwhelmingly drawn from the wealthy.
What does the campaigner who isn’t on an £80k salary do? The Green Party co-leaders at the election were not, I presume, earning that much. What they did is accept multiple large donations.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
the tories are going to be a lot more fucked than labour if new rules on donations come in. Hence why none of the leadership candidates are telling us where there 150k entry fees are coming from.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
You don't exactly need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or be upgraded from a standard season ticket at Arsenal to a corporate box, to campaign in an election. Also, if you are a politician, I believe get to do the campaigning in work time. I don't recall all the government ministers having to take unpaid leave during the election campaign. Not sure if MPs stop getting paid at dissolution or not.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
All the front line campaigners are on a minimum of £80k and will want and have them anyway…..
All the front line campaigners are not necessarily on £80k. If you presume politicians will pay for their own stuff, then you get something like the US system where politicians are overwhelmingly drawn from the wealthy.
What does the campaigner who isn’t on an £80k salary do? The Green Party co-leaders at the election were not, I presume, earning that much. What they did is accept multiple large donations.
I meant MPs. I suppose you heave a point on the greens, but then flash suits aren’t really their selling point.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
He was LOTO, so I think that's wrong.
"The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a salary in addition to their salary as a Member of Parliament. In 2019, this additional entitlement was available up to £65,181."
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
Surely it is if you are an MP, and in any case they earn enough so they can be expected to clothe themselves.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
You don't exactly need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or be upgraded from a standard season ticket at Arsenal to a corporate box, to campaign in an election. Also, if you are a politician, I believe get to do the campaigning in work time. I don't recall all the government ministers having to take unpaid leave during the election campaign. Not sure if MPs stop getting paid at dissolution or not.
The football one is the one the shows you who he is. If security says you can’t sit in the stands for safety reasons any more then you just stop going for your amusement and only go when it’s an official engagement.
I despise Corbyn’s politics but he’s a genuine man and I can’t imagine him having taken the box.
Boat crossings across the Channel are completely out of control
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
So rather like the economy, the health service, our aging society, the war in the Middle East, our relations with Europe, etc., etc., etc. then?
I really miss the early coalition years sometimes. The coalition agreement meant they had a very clear plan, and they more or less did stick to it. I think parts of that plan were foolish, but they stuck to it. Other governments since would have done well to have copied it.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
I’d limit cash donations to something very small like £1,000 per person per year, to a general party fund for national campigning. So parties should have 1,000 people giving them £1,000, not one person giving them a million.
Individual candidates already have tight expenditure rules.
Donations in services from businesses directly related to campaigning (friendly print shop, bus company etc) could perhaps be a bit higher around an election.
It’s reasonable to invite an MP to an event happening in their contituency, or a minister/shadow in their area of office, so long as they are there to actually shake hands and not just sit in the expensive seats with prawn sandwiches and champagne. Yes DCMS ministers are going to have busy schedules, but they are the exceptions and I want to see them handing out prizes at the UK Tiddlywinks Championship, not just at Wembley, Twickenham, Silverstone etc.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Fair enough: that is a consistent position. You run into grey areas (I think smart clothes can be part of a campaign; we’re Sunak’s helicopter rides necessary campaign costs or not?).
The donations that clearly haven’t been for campaigning purposes (e.g., partying abroad) are tiny in comparison. We could ban them, but I struggle with the idea that we should worry about small donations of one type leading to undue influence while we allow donations a hundred times as large for campaigning purposes. A Labour peer letting a Labour MP stay in his NY pad while he’s not there does not strike me as being as concerning as Frank Hester donating £5 million to the Conservative Party in May this year. Yet I recognise that the Conservative Party needs funds to function.
So, ban the small stuff, but allow the huge donations seems like missing the forest for the trees.
It's all a mess, isn't it? Which is why it requires people being sensible. Starmer's glasses or the partying is *not* sensible, which is why they're getting criticised. The clothes are less silly, but still poor IMO.
I actually disagree with your penultimate line: I think donations to political parties as a whole are less worrying than influence to one (or in the case of the good Lord, many) MPs.
Actually letting a donor have an underling involved with candidate selection is abhorrent, as is giving a donor a pass.
If donations to a party are less worrying than to individual MPs, what do you do about independent MPs, or even just independently minded ones? People here often say they want to see more independents, and the party whips/hierarchy having less power. But if donations have to come through parties, you give them more power.
The core principle of the current approach is transparency: we see who donated. We can then assess whether there was influence. Clear proof of undue influence would be more convincing than nitpicking over who paid for some clothes. The challenge here is that Lord Alli is also a Labour peer, a position he got long before these donations. He’s not just a donor: he’s someone who is legitimately part of the party hierarchy. He is a very different sort of donor than a Frank Hester, someone who makes money from government contracts.
But, sure, it looks bad that he got a Downing Street pass. I am not defending Labour’s actions. I didn’t vote for them. I just think there’s a lot of outrage without thinking through the implications.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
You don't exactly need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or be upgraded from a standard season ticket at Arsenal to a corporate box, to campaign in an election. Also, if you are a politician, I believe get to do the campaigning in work time. I don't recall all the government ministers having to take unpaid leave during the election campaign. Not sure if MPs stop getting paid at dissolution or not.
The football one is the one the shows you who he is. If security says you can’t sit in the stands for safety reasons any more then you just stop going for your amusement and only go when it’s an official engagement.
I despise Corbyn’s politics but he’s a genuine man and I can’t imagine him having taken the box.
To be honest, I didn't think the football one was too much of a problem, he still paid for 2 season tickets I believe so just got a "free upgrade" so he could still avail himself of what he had paid for. I like the idea that the PM can spend a couple of hours on Saturday afternoon doing something he enjoys. Similarly, his wife's frocks - I imagine if you are in the sort of job where you and your partner are expected to entertain clients at fancy do's then clothing can be expensed. Some of the other stuff is showing a bit more venality though.
Tom Scholar would be a good choice for Cabinet Secretary. Seems widely respected by everyone (except Liz Truss).
As for Starmer's gatekeeper that's up to him really.
Scholar would be better as Bank Governor.
Bailey wasn't an appointment that thrilled me but I think he has been okay so far, though the 8 year term is obviously ridiculous.
I thought Bailey was a terrible appointment that was pure Buggins' turn. He was ineffective and tin eared as head of the FCA and he's been exactly the same as Governor. He was appointed because the Johnson government was too distracted to to ignore the civil service card trick and find someone else.
Boat crossings across the Channel are completely out of control
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
The strategy is say nothing, hope the problem goes away. They did finally hire a small boat tsar, very much somebody who won't rock the boat, but there was absolutely no fanfare (I imagine most people missed it), for what was somebody a big policy idea.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
I’d limit cash donations to something very small like £1,000 per person per year, to a general party fund for national campigning. So parties should have 1,000 people giving them £1,000, not one person giving them a million.
Individual candidates already have tight expenditure rules.
Donations in services from businesses directly related to campaigning (friendly print shop, bus company etc) could perhaps be a bit higher around an election.
It’s reasonable to invite an MP to an event happening in their contituency, or a minister/shadow in their area of office, so long as they are there to actually shake hands and not just sit in the expensive seats with prawn sandwiches and champagne. Yes DCMS ministers are going to have busy schedules, but they are the exceptions and I want to see them handing out prizes at the UK Tiddlywinks Championship, not just at Wembley, Twickenham, Silverstone etc.
The thing is, one principle I'd like to keep is that MPs do not have to belong to a party, and can be thoroughly independent. Another is that you do not have to be massively rich to be an MP.
Therefore, according to my own criteria, I want MPs to be able to get outside funding for campaigns, and for it not to have to come through parties.
(Incidentally, I recall when an MP was invited in to 'open' an office that had been open for many years. The office was closed a year or two later. I never really got the purpose of that...)
Boat crossings across the Channel are completely out of control
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
So rather like the economy, the health service, our aging society, the war in the Middle East, our relations with Europe, etc., etc., etc. then?
I really miss the early coalition years sometimes. The coalition agreement meant they had a very clear plan, and they more or less did stick to it. I think parts of that plan were foolish, but they stuck to it. Other governments since would have done well to have copied it.
Also helps they had some talented people. Having the Lib Dems onboard boosted the talent pool with likes of Steve Webb, Danny Alexander and Norman Lamb just getting on doing the work.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Fair enough: that is a consistent position. You run into grey areas (I think smart clothes can be part of a campaign; we’re Sunak’s helicopter rides necessary campaign costs or not?).
The donations that clearly haven’t been for campaigning purposes (e.g., partying abroad) are tiny in comparison. We could ban them, but I struggle with the idea that we should worry about small donations of one type leading to undue influence while we allow donations a hundred times as large for campaigning purposes. A Labour peer letting a Labour MP stay in his NY pad while he’s not there does not strike me as being as concerning as Frank Hester donating £5 million to the Conservative Party in May this year. Yet I recognise that the Conservative Party needs funds to function.
So, ban the small stuff, but allow the huge donations seems like missing the forest for the trees.
It's all a mess, isn't it? Which is why it requires people being sensible. Starmer's glasses or the partying is *not* sensible, which is why they're getting criticised. The clothes are less silly, but still poor IMO.
I actually disagree with your penultimate line: I think donations to political parties as a whole are less worrying than influence to one (or in the case of the good Lord, many) MPs.
Actually letting a donor have an underling involved with candidate selection is abhorrent, as is giving a donor a pass.
If donations to a party are less worrying than to individual MPs, what do you do about independent MPs, or even just independently minded ones? People here often say they want to see more independents, and the party whips/hierarchy having less power. But if donations have to come through parties, you give them more power.
The core principle of the current approach is transparency: we see who donated. We can then assess whether there was influence. Clear proof of undue influence would be more convincing than nitpicking over who paid for some clothes. The challenge here is that Lord Alli is also a Labour peer, a position he got long before these donations. He’s not just a donor: he’s someone who is legitimately part of the party hierarchy. He is a very different sort of donor than a Frank Hester, someone who makes money from government contracts.
But, sure, it looks bad that he got a Downing Street pass. I am not defending Labour’s actions. I didn’t vote for them. I just think there’s a lot of outrage without thinking through the implications.
I've just read this, after I'd commented about this problem of independents above. And as with much of this, I don't have a firm answer. Perhaps candidates not taking a party whip can take personal donations up to the maximum campaigning level, as long as those donations are recorded as expected. Candidates selected by parties have to get funding through the parties. But that might have big flaws as well.
Lord Alli's situation is notable simply because of the number of Labour figures he has donated to, and the weird forms of these donations. In addition, getting a No. 10 pass and a lackey into candidate selections reeks of undue influence IMO.
Boat crossings across the Channel are completely out of control
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
So rather like the economy, the health service, our aging society, the war in the Middle East, our relations with Europe, etc., etc., etc. then?
I really miss the early coalition years sometimes. The coalition agreement meant they had a very clear plan, and they more or less did stick to it. I think parts of that plan were foolish, but they stuck to it. Other governments since would have done well to have copied it.
Also helps they had some talented people. Having the Lib Dems onboard boosted the talent pool with likes of Steve Webb, Danny Alexander and Norman Lamb just getting on doing the work.
Yes, Steve Webb and Norman Lamb are brilliant examples of round pegs in round holes.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
Yes, she's certainly earnt her son's job.
Speaking of Sue Gray's son, the newly-elected Liam Conlon MP who already is on the first rung of government as PPS at Transport, Morgan McSweeney's other half is Imogen Walker MP, newly elected and already on the first rung of government as PPS to the Chancellor.
What the Tories need is a clean skin who can attack Labour for corruption and nepotism. Good luck finding one!
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
You don't exactly need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or be upgraded from a standard season ticket at Arsenal to a corporate box, to campaign in an election. Also, if you are a politician, I believe get to do the campaigning in work time. I don't recall all the government ministers having to take unpaid leave during the election campaign. Not sure if MPs stop getting paid at dissolution or not.
I answered my own question - Google suggests that MPs are paid up to election day, so they are indeed professional political campaigners during the election campaign, and you would expect their parties to reimburse any necessary expenses
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
If Labour's central campaign team think that the most effective use of 20K of campaign funds is "make sure the leader has a wardrobe that means he looks the part of a leader-in-waiting", why should that be blocked? It might very well swing more votes overall than a couple of dozen extra billboard ads...
(Snip good stuff)
Because it's personal, for him. He gets to keep the wardrobe afterwards, which should last him years. It's also utterly unauthentic if these aren't the clothes he normally wears. And if they are, he should pay for them.
If you think every candidate and prime ministerial candidate in the last three decades has presented an "utterly authentic" view of themselves to the electorate, then I have a bridge to sell you. The electorate doesn't want 100% authenticity, though they do quite like an *impression* of authenticity (c.f. Boris). And there is a push for leaders to look the part even if that's not how they'd habitually dress in more casual moments -- see Michael Foot's "donkey jacket" and Cameron's suggestion that Corbyn "put on a proper suit". The opposition and the media wouldn't take that kind of line if they didn't think it resonated with people.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
Yes, she's certainly earnt her son's job.
Speaking of Sue Gray's son, the newly-elected Liam Conlon MP who already is on the first rung of government as PPS at Transport, Morgan McSweeney's other half is Imogen Walker MP, newly elected and already on the first rung of government as PPS to the Chancellor.
What the Tories need is a clean skin who can attack Labour for corruption and nepotism. Good luck finding one!
When you start looking at politics / SpAds, the nepotism in awful (not just Labour).
Even Jezza, his own son got a job working for McDonnell, then we had him taking donations from Mrs SAGE leaker, her ex-husband work for Jezza as did their kids.
Every Tory leader to win a VONC under the current rules was gone within weeks/months.
NB - very small sample size. N = 2.
Jenrick and Badenoch combined have over half of Tory MPs backing them, the right will takeover the party regardless until the next general election
Not by much, though.
In the last round, Bob + Kemi = 61 James + Tom + Mel = 58
Which implies that the centre-right/right lane balance is pretty close.
And also that whichever side loses a candidate in the next round will have the leading candidate in the final MP stage.
Badenoch dropping out will boost Jenrick overall, eliminating Tugendhat/Cleverly should push the other into the lead.
And then the membership are likely to vote for the more right wing candidate unless they do something dumb.
Doesn't this all depends on how tactically the leftier Tory MPs vote, and who they prefer in a forced KB - RJ choice.
If out of that forced choice they want RJ, they vote for the winner of JC/TT. If they don't want RJ, they have to vote KB.
Unless they are really optimistic that they can get RJ to blow up on the launchpad, and lose to one of JC/TT - but that seems to be clasping at very unlikely straws.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
If you are LoTO or in the Shadow Cabinet, or frankly any MP, it is literally your day job. I take your point for those not yet in the Commons but you could fix that with a Party “salary” from donations.
MPs are theoretically being paid to do the job of being an MP. They are not paid for campaigning. They are explicitly not paid during the general election campaign. The Shadow Cabinet aren’t paid (except for the whips and LOTO) beyond their MP pay.
How would you fix the system for those not in the Commons? The vast majority of election candidates are not paid by their parties and either have to keep working or make their own arrangements. The parties don’t get enough donations to pay candidates salaries.
Any system that means donations have to be funnelled through parties doesn’t work for independents and gives party hierarchies more power. People here generally say they want party hierarchies to have less power. If a good, local candidate can get a local donation for their campaign, that gives them some independence from the party.
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
If you are LoTO or in the Shadow Cabinet, or frankly any MP, it is literally your day job. I take your point for those not yet in the Commons but you could fix that with a Party “salary” from donations.
MPs are theoretically being paid to do the job of being an MP. They are not paid for campaigning. They are explicitly not paid during the general election campaign. The Shadow Cabinet aren’t paid (except for the whips and LOTO) beyond their MP pay.
How would you fix the system for those not in the Commons? The vast majority of election candidates are not paid by their parties and either have to keep working or make their own arrangements. The parties don’t get enough donations to pay candidates salaries.
Any system that means donations have to be funnelled through parties doesn’t work for independents and gives party hierarchies more power. People here generally say they want party hierarchies to have less power. If a good, local candidate can get a local donation for their campaign, that gives them some independence from the party.
Honestly? I think MPs should have had a job until the election campaign, and if they care enough they can plan for those 4 weeks with some help from their party. I don’t really care about independents - if you can’t afford it then join a party and make it a broad enough church for you.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
If you are LoTO or in the Shadow Cabinet, or frankly any MP, it is literally your day job. I take your point for those not yet in the Commons but you could fix that with a Party “salary” from donations.
MPs are theoretically being paid to do the job of being an MP. They are not paid for campaigning. They are explicitly not paid during the general election campaign. The Shadow Cabinet aren’t paid (except for the whips and LOTO) beyond their MP pay.
How would you fix the system for those not in the Commons? The vast majority of election candidates are not paid by their parties and either have to keep working or make their own arrangements. The parties don’t get enough donations to pay candidates salaries.
Any system that means donations have to be funnelled through parties doesn’t work for independents and gives party hierarchies more power. People here generally say they want party hierarchies to have less power. If a good, local candidate can get a local donation for their campaign, that gives them some independence from the party.
Honestly? I think MPs should have had a job until the election campaign, and if they care enough they can plan for those 4 weeks with some help from their party. I don’t really care about independents - if you can’t afford it then join a party and make it a broad enough church for you.
If you are smart, you get the bets on against yourself like that Labour PPC, then its win win. You win your seat, back on the gravy train. You lose, you get the pay out from the bookies.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
The duck house wasn't even paid for on expenses.
But it still became a symbol of the sleaze.
An example of how something trivially irrelevant can affect public perception rather than the far more serious items which involved actual criminality and convictions.
In the same way it doesn't matter if Starmer's gifts were declared if they still impact on public perceptions of him.
Ah you see, it does matter. Just because some of the public have been whipped into a frenzy by a hypocritical media doesn’t mean that what Lord Alli did was wrong. If a Labour donor wants to donate a clothing allowance to the First Lady, so what? Just because ‘Another Richard’, the bloke on the internet, thinks her couture is frivolous, while he sits at home In his hair shirt.
Is Unite part of the hypocritical media? Is The Guardian?
The latter is, certainly. Unite are just whining about the WFA and needed some false equivalence to make their point. Lot of it about!
It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful or not. What matters is that it shows SKS’s judgement stinks.
When you accept big gifts from people, you incur obligations to them.
There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Were you previously unaware that party donors donate to parties?
I’m well aware that politicians accept big gifts. And, it’s stupid and sleazy.
The same way, it may be lawful for Clarence Thomas to accept freebies, but it’s stupid and sleazy.
Thomas has a well-paid job, with all his costs of doing that job funded. He should not be taking freebies.
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
You don't exactly need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or be upgraded from a standard season ticket at Arsenal to a corporate box, to campaign in an election. Also, if you are a politician, I believe get to do the campaigning in work time. I don't recall all the government ministers having to take unpaid leave during the election campaign. Not sure if MPs stop getting paid at dissolution or not.
I believe MPs stop getting paid at dissolution. Most candidates aren’t MPs, of course. Ministers are meant to separate their ministerial work from their party campaigning work, as all MPs are meant to separate their MP work from campaigning, thus suff like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/20/snp-holyrood-scottish-parliament-msp/
You don’t need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or Arsenal, no. As I understand it, the Arsenal thing is about security and Starmer has continued to pay for his season ticket. You could ban the Swift tickets. As I’ve said, I don’t see that banning stuff like that while donors give parties millions is really going to solve anything.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
Were you previously unaware that political party donors donate to parties and politicians?
What a stupid question. Of course I was.
Now perhaps you should actually address the point that I made. Or perhaps you shouldn't - your twisting and squirming over the incompetence and grift of this Labour government is hilarious.
The people entitled to be most angry at these donations are Labour Party members, who might have reasonably assumed that political donations were there to pay for campaigning and not clothes. I had assumed they mostly were.
Nice clothes are part of a modern political campaign.
All the front line campaigners are on a minimum of £80k and will want and have them anyway…..
All the front line campaigners are not necessarily on £80k. If you presume politicians will pay for their own stuff, then you get something like the US system where politicians are overwhelmingly drawn from the wealthy.
What does the campaigner who isn’t on an £80k salary do? The Green Party co-leaders at the election were not, I presume, earning that much. What they did is accept multiple large donations.
I meant MPs. I suppose you heave a point on the greens, but then flash suits aren’t really their selling point.
A system has to work for all candidates. The vast majority of candidates are not MPs, of course. It’s just that losing candidates don’t have to declare where their donations came from, so we don’t hear about them.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
He was LOTO, so I think that's wrong.
"The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a salary in addition to their salary as a Member of Parliament. In 2019, this additional entitlement was available up to £65,181."
LOTO is a paid role, but the pay is for the LOTO’s role in Parliament, not for election campaigning.
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I reckon he takes the remote control batteries and the shower curtains too....
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
I’d limit cash donations to something very small like £1,000 per person per year, to a general party fund for national campigning. So parties should have 1,000 people giving them £1,000, not one person giving them a million.
Individual candidates already have tight expenditure rules.
Donations in services from businesses directly related to campaigning (friendly print shop, bus company etc) could perhaps be a bit higher around an election.
It’s reasonable to invite an MP to an event happening in their contituency, or a minister/shadow in their area of office, so long as they are there to actually shake hands and not just sit in the expensive seats with prawn sandwiches and champagne. Yes DCMS ministers are going to have busy schedules, but they are the exceptions and I want to see them handing out prizes at the UK Tiddlywinks Championship, not just at Wembley, Twickenham, Silverstone etc.
The thing is, one principle I'd like to keep is that MPs do not have to belong to a party, and can be thoroughly independent. Another is that you do not have to be massively rich to be an MP.
Therefore, according to my own criteria, I want MPs to be able to get outside funding for campaigns, and for it not to have to come through parties.
(Incidentally, I recall when an MP was invited in to 'open' an office that had been open for many years. The office was closed a year or two later. I never really got the purpose of that...)
There’s already rules on elections themselves, with tight funding limits for candidates. Once they’re in Parliament they have a generous office allowance for case work and research.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
Surely it is if you are an MP, and in any case they earn enough so they can be expected to clothe themselves.
Most candidates are not MPs. If you ban donations, then that gives a huge advantage to incumbents.
MPs are paid for their Parliamentary role, which is considered distinct from campaigning. At the start of the general election campaign, Parliament is dissolved and no-one technically is an MP. I believe no-one is in receipt of their MP pay for the duration of the campaign.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
Yes, she's certainly earnt her son's job.
Speaking of Sue Gray's son, the newly-elected Liam Conlon MP who already is on the first rung of government as PPS at Transport, Morgan McSweeney's other half is Imogen Walker MP, newly elected and already on the first rung of government as PPS to the Chancellor.
What the Tories need is a clean skin who can attack Labour for corruption and nepotism. Good luck finding one!
I feel we've gone past politics being a beauty parade. This Labour Government is the most pernicious, damaging force for national decline ever to take power in the modern era. Someone needs to oppose them, set out how they are going to reverse us out of this and put the country back on a secure footing. I'll take a chequered past if they do that. I would prefer them not to have a stain on their character but I'm not sure how realistic that is.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
He was LOTO, so I think that's wrong.
"The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a salary in addition to their salary as a Member of Parliament. In 2019, this additional entitlement was available up to £65,181."
LOTO is a paid role, but the pay is for the LOTO’s role in Parliament, not for election campaigning.
So are you saying that when he is campaigning he has to take unpaid leave from being LOTO? I thought not. He is allowed to do it in work time.
Just been to the utterly exquisite 700 year old Serbian Orthodox monastery of Gracanice. In the ethnically Serbian town of Gracanice.
The church is like a lofty Egyptian temple, the interior inexplicably decorated by Gustav Klimt at his most glittering. Outside, Serb flags fly in the drizzly breeze. Cars drive through waving Albanian flags, hooting horns, taunting them: We won. This is Albanian now
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I reckon he takes the remote control batteries and the shower curtains too....
You know you are in a bad hotel when not only is the battery compartment secured with a special screw, but the control itself it on a really short cable.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
Party finding is a mahoosive issue. But if donations are to be for campaigning, then expensive glasses, suits and partying abroad should not be part of it IMO.
Suits are for campaigning in. Why should they be excluded?
I used to go to work in a suit. I earned an awful lot less than Starmer, but funded it myself.
You had a paying job. Political campaigning is not a paying job.
Surely it is if you are an MP, and in any case they earn enough so they can be expected to clothe themselves.
Most candidates are not MPs. If you ban donations, then that gives a huge advantage to incumbents.
MPs are paid for their Parliamentary role, which is considered distinct from campaigning. At the start of the general election campaign, Parliament is dissolved and no-one technically is an MP. I believe no-one is in receipt of their MP pay for the duration of the campaign.
Google suggests they are paid to election day and they are allowed to campaign in work time, indeed when there is no parliamentary work to be done. Political parties should pay allowable out of pocket expenses to their candidates, as has been pointed out we need to do something different for independents
Just been to the utterly exquisite 700 year old Serbian Orthodox monastery of Gracanice. In the ethnically Serbian town of Gracanice.
The church is like a lofty Egyptian temple, the interior inexplicably decorated by Gustav Klimt at his most glittering. Outside, Serb flags fly in the drizzly breeze. Cars drive through waving Albanian flags, hooting horns, taunting them: We won. This is Albanian now
That war is not done. It will kick off again
Do you think Serbia has a claim to the two Serb-majority towns in the north of Kosovo.
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
I’d limit cash donations to something very small like £1,000 per person per year, to a general party fund for national campigning. So parties should have 1,000 people giving them £1,000, not one person giving them a million.
Individual candidates already have tight expenditure rules.
Donations in services from businesses directly related to campaigning (friendly print shop, bus company etc) could perhaps be a bit higher around an election.
It’s reasonable to invite an MP to an event happening in their contituency, or a minister/shadow in their area of office, so long as they are there to actually shake hands and not just sit in the expensive seats with prawn sandwiches and champagne. Yes DCMS ministers are going to have busy schedules, but they are the exceptions and I want to see them handing out prizes at the UK Tiddlywinks Championship, not just at Wembley, Twickenham, Silverstone etc.
OK, thank you for some specific ideas. There can be practical problems with tight limits per person: I give £1000, my (hypothetical) wife gives £1000, my elderly mother gives £1000, my company gives £1000, my shell company gives £1000, etc. But you can work on those.
I would note that this approach would be a radical change for UK parties. They would have to operate on much lower levels. The biggest problem is that this benefits the rich candidate. The person who can afford not to work and find their own campaign is much better positioned than the working class candidate.
Expenditure rules are tight, but only apply to the election period and say nothing about where the money comes from.
Just been to the utterly exquisite 700 year old Serbian Orthodox monastery of Gracanice. In the ethnically Serbian town of Gracanice.
The church is like a lofty Egyptian temple, the interior inexplicably decorated by Gustav Klimt at his most glittering. Outside, Serb flags fly in the drizzly breeze. Cars drive through waving Albanian flags, hooting horns, taunting them: We won. This is Albanian now
That war is not done. It will kick off again
Do you think Serbia has a claim to the two Serb-majority towns in the north of Kosovo.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
Most of Number 10's embarrassments have been on the political side which was supposed to be down to McSweeney, with Sue Gray sorting out governance. Speaking of which, we are still a top civil servant down now Case has quit or been ousted (delete as appropriate).
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
they can still claim for almost anything , never a need to put their hand in their own pockets. Bunch of chancers, pigs at the trough.
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I reckon he takes the remote control batteries and the shower curtains too....
You know you are in a bad hotel when not only is the battery compartment secured with a special screw, but the control itself it on a really short cable.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
Most of Number 10's embarrassments have been on the political side which was supposed to be down to McSweeney, with Sue Gray sorting out governance. Speaking of which, we are still a top civil servant down now Case has quit or been ousted (delete as appropriate).
Perhaps Gray could take that job. On the revolving door principle
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
It’s all about percentage improvement on what came before…
I've never liked Starmer as a politician; I thought he was OK as a lawyer ..... the McLibel case ..... insofar as I ever think about lawyers (Sorry, TSE). I thought Starmer came into politics late, thinking he was some sort of White Knight but one needs some experience in day to day politics as in any other walk of life, and casual observance is no substitute for experience.
Having someone in the team willing to say "that's a bad idea" is vital.
It might have stopped all the sleaze for one thing.
Do you mean declared gifts and donations, which have been part and parcel of UK politics since time immemorial? Were you unaware of this previously?
Did you think the same about the expenses scandal?
That was by and large against the rules. There was fraud, it was corrupt!
Several Labour MPs went to jail. It wasn't entirely Labour corruption despite how the Telegraph promoted the issue, Viggar's duck house was a comedic case in point but outlined how ridiculous the corruption had become. There was also a married couple whose behaviour was so wilful I cannot understand how at least one of them didn't see a day in court.
As others have pointed out, much of the expenses scandal was *not* fraud.
And Labour got the worst of it, because a) they had the most MPs; and b) they were in power.
The rules were changed afterwards, and became much stricter (perhaps too strict)? But it seems some MPs now don't bother with 'expenses', and just let rich donors gift them stuff. Not for influence, obvious. Oh no.
The vast majority of the donations, be they monetary or in kind, that MPs take in are for campaigning. I’ve not seen a sensible suggestion for how election campaigning costs should be covered if not by donations.
There should be tighter restrictions on donations allowed by any individual or organisation, as well as what they can be spent on.
It shouldn’t be possible for one wealthy donor to effectively buy off half the Cabinet with expensive gifts, nor for parties to spend their donations on dressing politicians.
Starmer has earned six figures for decades as a lawyer, prosecutor, and now politician. He can afford to dress himself and his wife. If Mrs Starmer really needs a new wardrobe for events, there will be dozens of young British designers falling over each other to lend her dresses.
OK, but can you detail what these restrictions should be? The devil’s in the detail.
I don’t think Alli has bought off half the Cabinet. You’re exaggerating how many people he’s donated to. Parties historically have often relied on big donors, e.g. Frank Hester donated over half the Tories’ total donations in the run up to the last election. Are your restrictions going to apply to Hester too?
yes, each party having their strings pulled by rich benefactors is all wrong. These people are parasites, selling their souls for danegold.
The BBC are saying Trump and Harris are deadlocked. Is this an accurate assessment ?
As far as we can tell, I think so.
Most people would accept that Pennsylvania has a very good chance of being the tipping point state again this time. 538 seem to be the best poll aggregator, and their most recent polling average has Harris up by only 0.6pp, but the latest published poll had fieldwork ending on the 29th. So it's certainly very close.
Deadlocked implies something a bit different, that the situation is quite fixed, with little able to move support one way or the other. I think that's also accurate, on the basis of the large number of people who have made up their minds.
I suppose it is possible that the polling is systematically biased, and either Trump has a large lead (due to the economy), or Harris has a large lead (due to not being Trump), but how would you tell?
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
Quite possible. There was speculation in one of the papers that a peerage was dangled.
She has just been found out , her protection as civil servant with other people actually doing all the work gone. Promoted well above her competence and found to be like teh emperor with no clothes on.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
It’s all about percentage improvement on what came before…
Percentages can be negative as well as positive numbers.
My photo of the day is a screenshot of the new "Operation SNAP Map" for Wales, which is a map of convictions for offences reported by Dashcammers, Cyclecammers and Motorbike Cammers in Wales. There's a time delay, of course.
This feels like a potentially very powerful tool for identifying areas of the Highway Network which need attention for safety reasons, as we get this process in place everywhere. And as an easy-to-understand tool to use with Councillors or other influencers, since so much of this stuff results from Road Conditions. Link: (Op SNAP tab): https://www.gosafe.org/camera-map/
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
Most of Number 10's embarrassments have been on the political side which was supposed to be down to McSweeney, with Sue Gray sorting out governance. Speaking of which, we are still a top civil servant down now Case has quit or been ousted (delete as appropriate).
Perhaps Gray could take that job. On the revolving door principle
she has the golden handshake of a nothing job, Envoy to the nations, what absolute bollox.
There is a weekly pattern with crossings peaking at the weekend. Before Friday the previous 6 days only had one boat crossing.
Numbers remain high by historical measures but are down on 2023, 2022 and (in the last month) 2021. And have gone from running way ahead of 2023 year to date up to 4 July to comfortably behind year to date now.
I doubt any of that is thanks to some amazing new Labour policy, but perspective vs the last few years of Tory rule is important.
Sue Gray is late sixties and successfully manoeuvred her son into Parliament, helped change the Government and professionalise Labour, and helped take down Boris to pave the road. Maybe she just decided she doesn’t fancy being the story and has done enough, and has just said “#### it I’m off”.
When I look at this govt they truly exude professionalism. Well done Sue.
Most of Number 10's embarrassments have been on the political side which was supposed to be down to McSweeney, with Sue Gray sorting out governance. Speaking of which, we are still a top civil servant down now Case has quit or been ousted (delete as appropriate).
Perhaps Gray could take that job. On the revolving door principle
she has the golden handshake of a nothing job, Envoy to the nations, what absolute bollox.
Just been to the utterly exquisite 700 year old Serbian Orthodox monastery of Gracanice. In the ethnically Serbian town of Gracanice.
The church is like a lofty Egyptian temple, the interior inexplicably decorated by Gustav Klimt at his most glittering. Outside, Serb flags fly in the drizzly breeze. Cars drive through waving Albanian flags, hooting horns, taunting them: We won. This is Albanian now
That war is not done. It will kick off again
I didn't make it to Gracanice, I was planning to as they have some Roman remains just outside town but the timings didn't work and I had to go to Peja. Which was a bit too boring, apart from the Orthodox Patriarchate. Everyone says don't spend too long in Pristina but it has a certain rough-wedged charm and there's a few things you can do just outside town.
In Rahovec I saw burned out and abandoned houses formally lived in by Serbs, and everywhere you go there are armed police by churches (and I would guess mosques in Serbian areas)
Kosovo is an odd place, it is more observant-Muslim than Albania, ie people do actually go to the mosque and you get woken up by the call to prayer if you are anywhere near the old town. I realised when I got to Macedonia that I hadn't eaten pork in a week. Yet they still seem to have Sunday closing and Sunday bus timetables can be very reduced.
The people are friendly though, the food is good, they make a mean macchiato and there is no block to drinking.
And is another example of bad PR by Labour. They should be trumpeting that numbers have fallen. Sunak would have, in the same situation. But silence. I assume they’re unwilling to make a hostage to fortune.
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I reckon he takes the remote control batteries and the shower curtains too....
You know you are in a bad hotel when not only is the battery compartment secured with a special screw, but the control itself it on a really short cable.
You know Leon probably hasn't stayed there.
Or they are taking precautions, just in case.
I always steal the little bottles of shampoo etc, they are great for when you are travelling hand luggage only. Or as backup as I sometimes stay in a hotel where they don't replenish over the weekend, or the soap dispenser gives out something like Swarfega
Mostly because it was the first decent crossing weather for a week, most of last week there were no crossings.
Over the year the graph tracks 2023 almost exactly, with no sudden shift in July indeed a slight drop off from trend if anything, and considerably fewer than 2022.
And is another example of bad PR by Labour. They should be trumpeting that numbers have fallen. Sunak would have, in the same situation. But silence. I assume they’re unwilling to make a hostage to fortune.
Not sure it's bad PR. They might have just decided not to bang on about small boats.
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Well Starmer's own rose garden press conference caused a lot of the issues we are seeing 5 weeks on. The f##k you I will continue to take all the tiny soaps, bath robes and flip flops from the hotel bathroom if i want went down like a lead balloon.
I reckon he takes the remote control batteries and the shower curtains too....
You know you are in a bad hotel when not only is the battery compartment secured with a special screw, but the control itself it on a really short cable.
You know Leon probably hasn't stayed there.
Or they are taking precautions, just in case.
I always steal the little bottles of shampoo etc, they are great for when you are travelling hand luggage only. Or as backup as I sometimes stay in a hotel where they don't replenish over the weekend, or the soap dispenser gives out something like Swarfega
That swarfega is handy for when you've been trying to get that tricky screw off the remote control cover...
There is a weekly pattern with crossings peaking at the weekend. Before Friday the previous 6 days only had one boat crossing.
Numbers remain high by historical measures but are down on 2023, 2022 and (in the last month) 2021. And have gone from running way ahead of 2023 year to date up to 4 July to comfortably behind year to date now.
I doubt any of that is thanks to some amazing new Labour policy, but perspective vs the last few years of Tory rule is important.
Yet, strangely, these year on year reductions got given no credit by Labour during the election campaign, when the idea was to batter Rishi on the topic.
There is a weekly pattern with crossings peaking at the weekend. Before Friday the previous 6 days only had one boat crossing.
Numbers remain high by historical measures but are down on 2023, 2022 and (in the last month) 2021. And have gone from running way ahead of 2023 year to date up to 4 July to comfortably behind year to date now.
I doubt any of that is thanks to some amazing new Labour policy, but perspective vs the last few years of Tory rule is important.
Yet, strangely, these year on year reductions got given no credit by Labour during the election campaign, when the idea was to batter Rishi on the topic.
So fuck it.
Up to the election we were running well ahead of last year. We’ve clawed it back since.
Boat crossings across the Channel are completely out of control
And it's very clear Starmer has no plan to deal with them whatsoever
So rather like the economy, the health service, our aging society, the war in the Middle East, our relations with Europe, etc., etc., etc. then?
I really miss the early coalition years sometimes. The coalition agreement meant they had a very clear plan, and they more or less did stick to it. I think parts of that plan were foolish, but they stuck to it. Other governments since would have done well to have copied it.
Also helps they had some talented people. Having the Lib Dems onboard boosted the talent pool with likes of Steve Webb, Danny Alexander and Norman Lamb just getting on doing the work.
In return for which, they got shafted at the next election, of course.
And is another example of bad PR by Labour. They should be trumpeting that numbers have fallen. Sunak would have, in the same situation. But silence. I assume they’re unwilling to make a hostage to fortune.
Their media management appears to be largely non-existent.
The BBC are saying Trump and Harris are deadlocked. Is this an accurate assessment ?
As far as we can tell, I think so.
Most people would accept that Pennsylvania has a very good chance of being the tipping point state again this time. 538 seem to be the best poll aggregator, and their most recent polling average has Harris up by only 0.6pp, but the latest published poll had fieldwork ending on the 29th. So it's certainly very close.
Deadlocked implies something a bit different, that the situation is quite fixed, with little able to move support one way or the other. I think that's also accurate, on the basis of the large number of people who have made up their minds.
I suppose it is possible that the polling is systematically biased, and either Trump has a large lead (due to the economy), or Harris has a large lead (due to not being Trump), but how would you tell?
PA was not the tipping point state the last two times. It was Wisconsin.
There is a weekly pattern with crossings peaking at the weekend. Before Friday the previous 6 days only had one boat crossing.
Numbers remain high by historical measures but are down on 2023, 2022 and (in the last month) 2021. And have gone from running way ahead of 2023 year to date up to 4 July to comfortably behind year to date now.
I doubt any of that is thanks to some amazing new Labour policy, but perspective vs the last few years of Tory rule is important.
Yet, strangely, these year on year reductions got given no credit by Labour during the election campaign, when the idea was to batter Rishi on the topic.
So fuck it.
Perhaps you should try to sell "Fuck the Facts" as a new slogan to whoever is elected as the next Tory leader. Whether it's Jenrick, Badenoch or Cleverly by all appearances it will fit in with their campaign plan.
Comments
bribesgifts as tax free when their status is crystal clear for the rest of us. Can add tax dodging to Kier's list of venality.Is he a Fleet Street barber who slits throats, or a Scottish Flying Squad in a kipper tie who metaphorically beats people up?
(I see he's an associate of Leo Varadkar, who grew up in a place called Macroom.)
Running for election is not a job you get paid for. The only approach modern liberal democracies have come up for this is to let politicians raise donations.
"That stupid idiot Donald
Gonna lose the election again"
What does the campaigner who isn’t on an £80k salary do? The Green Party co-leaders at the election were not, I presume, earning that much. What they did is accept multiple large donations.
"The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a salary in addition to their salary as a Member of Parliament. In 2019, this additional entitlement was available up to £65,181."
I despise Corbyn’s politics but he’s a genuine man and I can’t imagine him having taken the box.
Individual candidates already have tight expenditure rules.
Donations in services from businesses directly related to campaigning (friendly print shop, bus company etc) could perhaps be a bit higher around an election.
It’s reasonable to invite an MP to an event happening in their contituency, or a minister/shadow in their area of office, so long as they are there to actually shake hands and not just sit in the expensive seats with prawn sandwiches and champagne. Yes DCMS ministers are going to have busy schedules, but they are the exceptions and I want to see them handing out prizes at the UK Tiddlywinks Championship, not just at Wembley, Twickenham, Silverstone etc.
The core principle of the current approach is transparency: we see who donated. We can then assess whether there was influence. Clear proof of undue influence would be more convincing than nitpicking over who paid for some clothes. The challenge here is that Lord Alli is also a Labour peer, a position he got long before these donations. He’s not just a donor: he’s someone who is legitimately part of the party hierarchy. He is a very different sort of donor than a Frank Hester, someone who makes money from government contracts.
But, sure, it looks bad that he got a Downing Street pass. I am not defending Labour’s actions. I didn’t vote for them. I just think there’s a lot of outrage without thinking through the implications.
Therefore, according to my own criteria, I want MPs to be able to get outside funding for campaigns, and for it not to have to come through parties.
(Incidentally, I recall when an MP was invited in to 'open' an office that had been open for many years. The office was closed a year or two later. I never really got the purpose of that...)
Lord Alli's situation is notable simply because of the number of Labour figures he has donated to, and the weird forms of these donations. In addition, getting a No. 10 pass and a lackey into candidate selections reeks of undue influence IMO.
What the Tories need is a clean skin who can attack Labour for corruption and nepotism. Good luck finding one!
Where was the impassioned public plea for her to stay, followed by the awkward press conference in the rose garden.
No tragic pictures of her lugging cardboard box out the front door.
Sad...
Even Jezza, his own son got a job working for McDonnell, then we had him taking donations from Mrs SAGE leaker, her ex-husband work for Jezza as did their kids.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éminence_grise
If out of that forced choice they want RJ, they vote for the winner of JC/TT. If they don't want RJ, they have to vote KB.
Unless they are really optimistic that they can get RJ to blow up on the launchpad, and lose to one of JC/TT - but that seems to be clasping at very unlikely straws.
How would you fix the system for those not in the Commons? The vast majority of election candidates are not paid by their parties and either have to keep working or make their own arrangements. The parties don’t get enough donations to pay candidates salaries.
Any system that means donations have to be funnelled through parties doesn’t work for independents and gives party hierarchies more power. People here generally say they want party hierarchies to have less power. If a good, local candidate can get a local donation for their campaign, that gives them some independence from the party.
You don’t need to go to a Taylor Swift concert or Arsenal, no. As I understand it, the Arsenal thing is about security and Starmer has continued to pay for his season ticket. You could ban the Swift tickets. As I’ve said, I don’t see that banning stuff like that while donors give parties millions is really going to solve anything.
Or will it show briefing and counter-briefing gets results in the removing your enemies stakes?
There were I think more independent MPs just elected, depending on exactly how you define the term, in several decades. You need volunteers and some money, but not millions. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-general-elections-great-britain/candidate-spending/how-much-can-you-spend
I agree with you that more independent MPs is a good thing, and we should encourage it whilst not wanting people trying to buy their way in.
MPs are paid for their Parliamentary role, which is considered distinct from campaigning. At the start of the general election campaign, Parliament is dissolved and no-one technically is an MP. I believe no-one is in receipt of their MP pay for the duration of the campaign.
The church is like a lofty Egyptian temple, the interior inexplicably decorated by Gustav Klimt at his most glittering. Outside, Serb flags fly in the drizzly breeze. Cars drive through waving Albanian flags, hooting horns, taunting them: We won. This is Albanian now
That war is not done. It will kick off again
BoZo beat them to it
After Brexit he begat Truss
Labour are unlikely to ever do as much damage as they did
I would note that this approach would be a radical change for UK parties. They would have to operate on much lower levels. The biggest problem is that this benefits the rich candidate. The person who can afford not to work and find their own campaign is much better positioned than the working class candidate.
Expenditure rules are tight, but only apply to the election period and say nothing about where the money comes from.
A total of 973 migrants in 17 boats reached the UK, beating the previous record for 2024 – which was 882 people on 18 June.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/06/1000-migrants-crossed-channel-breaking-record/
Or they are taking precautions, just in case.
Most people would accept that Pennsylvania has a very good chance of being the tipping point state again this time. 538 seem to be the best poll aggregator, and their most recent polling average has Harris up by only 0.6pp, but the latest published poll had fieldwork ending on the 29th. So it's certainly very close.
Deadlocked implies something a bit different, that the situation is quite fixed, with little able to move support one way or the other. I think that's also accurate, on the basis of the large number of people who have made up their minds.
I suppose it is possible that the polling is systematically biased, and either Trump has a large lead (due to the economy), or Harris has a large lead (due to not being Trump), but how would you tell?
This feels like a potentially very powerful tool for identifying areas of the Highway Network which need attention for safety reasons, as we get this process in place everywhere. And as an easy-to-understand tool to use with Councillors or other influencers, since so much of this stuff results from Road Conditions.
Link: (Op SNAP tab):
https://www.gosafe.org/camera-map/
There is a weekly pattern with crossings peaking at the weekend. Before Friday the previous 6 days only had one boat crossing.
Numbers remain high by historical measures but are down on 2023, 2022 and (in the last month) 2021. And have gone from running way ahead of 2023 year to date up to 4 July to comfortably behind year to date now.
I doubt any of that is thanks to some amazing new Labour policy, but perspective vs the last few years of Tory rule is important.
In Rahovec I saw burned out and abandoned houses formally lived in by Serbs, and everywhere you go there are armed police by churches (and I would guess mosques in Serbian areas)
Kosovo is an odd place, it is more observant-Muslim than Albania, ie people do actually go to the mosque and you get woken up by the call to prayer if you are anywhere near the old town. I realised when I got to Macedonia that I hadn't eaten pork in a week. Yet they still seem to have Sunday closing and Sunday bus timetables can be very reduced.
The people are friendly though, the food is good, they make a mean macchiato and there is no block to drinking.
Over the year the graph tracks 2023 almost exactly, with no sudden shift in July indeed a slight drop off from trend if anything, and considerably fewer than 2022.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/channel-crossings-tracker
So fuck it.