Starmer should auction all the gifts he was given and give the prooeeds to charity. You should get a good premium for provenance
There is a demand that Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others repay the donations which is rather inevitable
Labour should up the ante and ban all donations to Individual MPs, then we can see the likes of Farage and other tougher squeal.
I genuine believe all donations to mps should be banned from whatever source
Aha! So now we are getting somewhere!
I have been consistent in that for years but attempts to excuse Starmer and his cabinet are falling on deaf ears
You're on fire tonight BigG. Do you remember when a beer and a curry at the miner's welfare in Durham was worse than multiple lockdown (I didn't think they were) parties in Downing Street?
There are many who think Starmer got away with that night (cut)
Well you did for starters.
Please show me where I came to that conclusion
By the very fact you wrote your post before last.
Because I pass a comment that is general knowledge does not mean I concur with it
Starmer was found to have behaved inpecabibly but unfortunately for him that cannot be said now in this crisis
What has he done wrong?
Trashed his brand
I would just add Ratner didn't do anything wrong but his brand never recovered
Ratners brand was not trashed because of personal peccadillos but because he declared his brand to be trash. Starmer's case has no relationship to that.
A better example might have been Johnson. By common consent his morality public and private stank but it appears to have done nothing to trash either the Conservative or even his own brand at the time.
But neither example really works.
Starmer has slightly dented his own reputation for probity. That's all and if he and his government play their cards right it's something no one will even remember in a few weeks. And if they do it will be put down to early days naivity
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
Make it the same as for average plebs, you cannot accept any gifts or you get sacked, pretty simple. Grifters should not be running the country.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
The feckers are paid well enough and have unlimited expenses, they pay for nothing , last thing the greedy grasping shysters need is a pay rise. In the private sector you would deservedly be sacked, pampered grifters on the make.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
If it is registered cash used soley for election materials then fine. Boxes at Arsenal, designer clothes an dspecs to millionaires have feck all to do with getting elected. What do the plebs do for clothese to get to work.
Starmer should auction all the gifts he was given and give the prooeeds to charity. You should get a good premium for provenance
There is a demand that Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others repay the donations which is rather inevitable
What were they thinking?
How does this happen?
Just gave a speech about being a new government that is ethical and an end to tory years of corruption and dodges and sleaze.
Walk off stage.
Then trouser the £2k donation for a new set of high fashion trousers.
I just cannot understand why anyone can be this stupid.
GREED
It's more than greed: it's a contempt. They think they *deserve* these donations because they're special. Once they think that, it becomes possible to accept them without thinking how it looks - or what the donor might want later on.
The donations can be accepted because they're good, and honest.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
Unless you state fund election campaigns you won't stop donations to parties and campaigns. I suppose we could stagger the rollout. Ban donations to Labour first and see how that pans out.
Parties yes but individual politicians no
5 independent MPs were elected at the general election. What about them?
The salary needs to be sufficient to prevent this abuse
and 90K+ , half the year on holiday, unlimited expenses down to a single paperclip/half pint of milk is not enough for these shysters. Reeves claimed 4K for electricity before she stiffed poor pensioners. They are all the same , grifters out to grasp as much as they can for themselves.
Starmer should auction all the gifts he was given and give the prooeeds to charity. You should get a good premium for provenance
There is a demand that Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others repay the donations which is rather inevitable
Labour should up the ante and ban all donations to Individual MPs, then we can see the likes of Farage and other tougher squeal.
I genuine believe all donations to mps should be banned from whatever source
Aha! So now we are getting somewhere!
I have been consistent in that for years but attempts to excuse Starmer and his cabinet are falling on deaf ears
You're on fire tonight BigG. Do you remember when a beer and a curry at the miner's welfare in Durham was worse than multiple lockdown (I didn't think they were) parties in Downing Street?
There are many who think Starmer got away with that night (cut)
Well you did for starters.
Please show me where I came to that conclusion
By the very fact you wrote your post before last.
Because I pass a comment that is general knowledge does not mean I concur with it
Starmer was found to have behaved inpecabibly but unfortunately for him that cannot be said now in this crisis
What has he done wrong?
Trashed his brand
I would just add Ratner didn't do anything wrong but his brand never recovered
You may be correct, or you may be wishcasting.
Not wishcasting - just my own intuition on how it looks and a real personal disappointment that Starmer was going to be better
It isn't a good look, but it would seem to be the norm, perhaps it shouldn't be. Does this look any worse than Johnson taking his pole dancing American IT squeeze on official business whilst holding public office? Common knowledge yet he later won a landslide. Russian Violinists...
That is the point , Free Gear pretended he was honest when it turns out he is just Bozo without the comedy
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
Unless you state fund election campaigns you won't stop donations to parties and campaigns. I suppose we could stagger the rollout. Ban donations to Labour first and see how that pans out.
Parties yes but individual politicians no
5 independent MPs were elected at the general election. What about them?
The salary needs to be sufficient to prevent this abuse
It wouldn’t. Since the money is available, and people always want more.
But MPs are paid absurdly low wages. There’s a charm to Britain’s puritanical public service compensation culture, but it’s gone way too far.
MPs are paid more than 99% of the population, that's not absurdly low.
MP wages have risen far, far higher than median wages for years now.
£80,000 ish is more than 99% of the population? I think you've got that a bit wrong
81000 is top 5%
they are over 90K and a shedload of expenses for anything they wish , never need to touch their salaries and get half the year off on holiday.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
"I took cash for clothes too, admits Rachel Reeves
Rachel Reeves has admitted she accepted money for clothes, as the backlash over gifts from donors threatened to overshadow the Labour Party conference this weekend. The Chancellor has received almost £7,500 for clothing since 2023 from a friend called Juliet Rosenfeld, the widow of a Labour donor caught up in the 2006 cash for honours scandal."
Why is ladieswear any different to any other gift or donation? A very cruel cynic might submit that it’s because PB is full of lots of slobby middle-aged men with no dress-sense nor interest in fashion.
Because it is not exclusively used in their professional capacity (the same as a suit)
Seems like they’re all “at it”, with honourable exceptions.
Keir’s (and Rachel’s, and Angela’s) stupidity was to think that because they are Labour, it doesn’t count.
Did they think that? They declared the clothes. What’s the problem?
Only because they were caught out.
Nope. They are all there in the register and they declared them before any media interest.
Did they declare them as clothing, or merely as “donations to the office”?
Why does it matter? What’s the problem with clothing - they wear it to work.
(Ange did name it as clothing FWIW, but who cares?)
It wouldn’t matter if they were more transparent. I actually have no issue with political leaders freshening themselves up before the enter office. I posted a few days ago that it was totally natural.
If Angela was open about it, great. The luxury apartment in Manhattan is downright odd, though.
Business clothes seem to be an obsession of some. Why is it any worse than spending the cash on laptops, or iPhones?
The difference is between a personal gift to the MP and a donation to the “office”.
The latter is ok. The former is not. It creates the reality or potential for a sense of personal obligation to an individual.
Seems like they’re all “at it”, with honourable exceptions.
Keir’s (and Rachel’s, and Angela’s) stupidity was to think that because they are Labour, it doesn’t count.
Did they think that? They declared the clothes. What’s the problem?
Only because they were caught out.
Nope. They are all there in the register and they declared them before any media interest.
Did they declare them as clothing, or merely as “donations to the office”?
Why does it matter? What’s the problem with clothing - they wear it to work.
(Ange did name it as clothing FWIW, but who cares?)
It wouldn’t matter if they were more transparent. I actually have no issue with political leaders freshening themselves up before the enter office. I posted a few days ago that it was totally natural.
If Angela was open about it, great. The luxury apartment in Manhattan is downright odd, though.
Business clothes seem to be an obsession of some. Why is it any worse than spending the cash on laptops, or iPhones?
The difference is between a personal gift to the MP and a donation to the “office”.
The latter is ok. The former is not. It creates the reality or potential for a sense of personal obligation to an individual.
Free clothes are obviously totally fine, which is why the government has announced that they won't be accepting any more free clothes
Seems like they’re all “at it”, with honourable exceptions.
Keir’s (and Rachel’s, and Angela’s) stupidity was to think that because they are Labour, it doesn’t count.
Did they think that? They declared the clothes. What’s the problem?
Only because they were caught out.
Nope. They are all there in the register and they declared them before any media interest.
Did they declare them as clothing, or merely as “donations to the office”?
Why does it matter? What’s the problem with clothing - they wear it to work.
(Ange did name it as clothing FWIW, but who cares?)
It wouldn’t matter if they were more transparent. I actually have no issue with political leaders freshening themselves up before the enter office. I posted a few days ago that it was totally natural.
If Angela was open about it, great. The luxury apartment in Manhattan is downright odd, though.
Business clothes seem to be an obsession of some. Why is it any worse than spending the cash on laptops, or iPhones?
The difference is between a personal gift to the MP and a donation to the “office”.
The latter is ok. The former is not. It creates the reality or potential for a sense of personal obligation to an individual.
Free clothes are obviously totally fine, which is why the government has announced that they won't be accepting any more free clothes
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect our Prime Minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury rather than a private donor so be it.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
That's a really interesting one, and the job of an MP is rather unusual, with the MP having to work both in their constituency and in London, even when those are hundreds of miles apart. I don't think this applies to 'Kingston and Surbiton' though.
I have sympathy for him requiring help. But it probably should be through public channels *if* the extra help is required as part of his duties as MP and leader of a party.
Then the question becomes why others with disabled children and demanding jobs don't get such help...
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
So long as you can genuinely justify fact finding missions they are ok, but not as boondoggles. Bit of a grey area.
I don’t know the specific of Ed Davey’s donation, so not commenting on that specifically, but is basic rule is if it is exclusivity for work purposes then it is ok, if not then it isn’t. So in general, accepting care costs sounds like a “no”
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect our Prime Minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury rather than a private donor so be it.
The pop group analogy is an interesting one. In ye olden days of the 1980s, it was all a bit of a con, because the artist ended up paying for many of the gifts. The 'gifts' given by management often came out of the artists' earnings, which took years to come through to the artist.
ISTR Tom Watkins gave Bros cars, which came out of their earnings a couple of years later. They hadn't realised. Whilst the Pet Shop Boys were still living in small flats after they'd had four Number Ones, because they realised the way the industry worked, and refused many of the gifts.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
That's a really interesting one, and the job of an MP is rather unusual, with the MP having to work both in their constituency and in London, even when those are hundreds of miles apart. I don't think this applies to 'Kingston and Surbiton' though.
I have sympathy for him requiring help. But it probably should be through public channels *if* the extra help is required as part of his duties as MP and leader of a party.
Then the question becomes why others with disabled children and demanding jobs don't get such help...
To be fair Ed Davey is aware that his comfortable middle class lifestyle makes looking after his disabled son less of a burden, and campaigned strongly to expand support for unpaid carers. It was a centrepiece of the LD manifesto and campaign, indeed it's because of his memorable PPB that we know of his domestic circumstances.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
They can just buy classy value. From their own pockets. Starmer will have made good money. Spend it.
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
I really don't see any difference between Ed Davey's son and anyone else's son. The care package is normally between the parents and the local council. If there is a shortfall between what the council can afford to provide and what would be totally desirable normally it is for the parent to make up that shortfall. I am no less unhappy with him receiving this than I am with the vile behaviour of Starmer. What if Ed Davey had a non-disabled son but decided he needed to go to a minor public school to get away from the frantice life at home. Would it be OK for him to accept that ? What if Eton gave him a free place, not on some objective criterion of ability to benefit but because they wanted the LD votes in parliament ?
Ed Davey has declared a total of £29,500 from 6 donors, and…
Name of donor: Sudhir Choudhrie Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £25,000 this donation is for the sole purpose of providing additional personal care support to my young son, who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder resulting in severe physical and learning disabilities. Date received: 22 March 2024 to 31 October 2024 Date accepted: 22 March 2024 Donor status: individual
Plus
National Liberal Club Honorary life membership as Leader of the Liberal Democrats (value provided is that in 2023), value £798
A seat at Viaro Energy's table at the London Air Ambulance Charity Gala, value £2,500
And…
Name of donor: The Football Association Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two hospitality tickets for me and a family member to attend Taylor Swift's "The Eras Tour", value £584
It will probably be quicker to highlight the MPs that did NOT get football and Swift tickets
There are some less well known MPs who declare nil, e.g. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) and Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance). Lots only declare small change, or expenses for Parliamentary group visits, or outside earnings that seem very reasonable (also being a councillor, final payments from employee before they were elected).
I admire you two doing your best to justify Starmer and others freebies, but look at tonight's survation poll and realise this has cut through and the public do not like it
Starmer and others… you are starting to twig!!
How would you change the rules?
Would you extend these rules to other businesses?
I would ban all gifts and freebies to elected politicians and increase their salaries
Starmer salary is far too low but then Gordon Brown was behind the reduction in PM salaries
As far as the private sector is concerned that is a matter for them and their shareholders
A lot of gifts being declared now were given to pay for campaigning costs. Lots of today’s MPs weren’t MPs until the election. Increasing MPs’ salaries doesn’t help those people. What is someone like Adrian Ramsay meant to do if he wants to get elected? How can democracy work without donations to political parties and would-be politicians?
Donations to political parties are fine
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
What if it’s not a holiday but a fact-finding mission?
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
So long as you can genuinely justify fact finding missions they are ok, but not as boondoggles. Bit of a grey area.
I don’t know the specific of Ed Davey’s donation, so not commenting on that specifically, but is basic rule is if it is exclusivity for work purposes then it is ok, if not then it isn’t. So in general, accepting care costs sounds like a “no”
I don't think Davey could have done his highly successful battlebus and watersports campaign if he had to be in Kingston for breakfast and bed time everyday.
A bit of support from paid carers in order to free him from these tasks may well be pound for pound the most effective bit of campaign support in modern British political history.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Roger sometimes youre so delightfully shallow we need a micrometer to measure your views.
All battery supply chain investment - domestic mining, battery materials production, and recycling. Pretty well all of which is currently China dominated.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
They can just buy classy value. From their own pockets. Starmer will have made good money. Spend it.
My contrary position would be this: let the state fund a high quality wardrobe and personal fashion and makeup consultants for the PM and spouse, a top of the range car, and all the other trappings that befit the office. Extend that to cabinet ministers. Our political leaders should be a shop window for British style, and British made luxury goods.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
well that explains some of your posts
Not me. I find shiraz too heavy and tannic.
Sensible. Pinot noir, gamay or cabernet franc if its red
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Roger sometimes youre so delightfully shallow we need a micrometer to measure your views.
LOL! Your posts are so well articulated that if only you had the confidence you'd realise that you don't need to repeat the same post dozens of times a day for it to be understood.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
well that explains some of your posts
Not me. I find shiraz too heavy and tannic.
Sensible. Pinot noir, gamay or cabernet franc if its red
We are in rare agreement, though I did have a rather nice Barolo with my roast beef last Sunday, a gift from a grateful patient.
Starmer should auction all the gifts he was given and give the prooeeds to charity. You should get a good premium for provenance
There is a demand that Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others repay the donations which is rather inevitable
Labour should up the ante and ban all donations to Individual MPs, then we can see the likes of Farage and other tougher squeal.
I genuine believe all donations to mps should be banned from whatever source
Aha! So now we are getting somewhere!
I have been consistent in that for years but attempts to excuse Starmer and his cabinet are falling on deaf ears
You're on fire tonight BigG. Do you remember when a beer and a curry at the miner's welfare in Durham was worse than multiple lockdown (I didn't think they were) parties in Downing Street?
There are many who think Starmer got away with that night (cut)
Well you did for starters.
Please show me where I came to that conclusion
By the very fact you wrote your post before last.
Because I pass a comment that is general knowledge does not mean I concur with it
Starmer was found to have behaved inpecabibly but unfortunately for him that cannot be said now in this crisis
What has he done wrong?
Trashed his brand
I would just add Ratner didn't do anything wrong but his brand never recovered
Ratners brand was not trashed because of personal peccadillos but because he declared his brand to be trash. Starmer's case has no relationship to that.
A better example might have been Johnson. By common consent his morality public and private stank but it appears to have done nothing to trash either the Conservative or even his own brand at the time.
But neither example really works.
Starmer has slightly dented his own reputation for probity. That's all and if he and his government play their cards right it's something no one will even remember in a few weeks. And if they do it will be put down to early days naivity
If you do a word association on me with Blair, you get Iraq first and Ecclestone second.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
well that explains some of your posts
Not me. I find shiraz too heavy and tannic.
Sensible. Pinot noir, gamay or cabernet franc if its red
We are in rare agreement, though I did have a rather nice Barolo with my roast beef last Sunday, a gift from a grateful patient.
Sort of snap Im partial to an Amarone but ususally only open one around Christmas. When I was younger I could handle tannins but now they just give me a sore head next day.
I wasn't following this ....gate story at all. But having noticed a considerable improvement in the way Starmer was dressing and the notice his wife's clothes were getting home and abroad I'd assumed they had wisely employed a stylist or more likely their PR had got hold of one for them. During campaigning it's an obvious thing to do...... You wouldn't dream of shooting a PPB with the outfit he happened to turn up in!
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect Prime minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
The whole idea is ridiculous. People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury so be it.
The big issue is that Starmer and Reeves are in/riding on a ticket of po faced austere puritanism for the rest of us...
Unfortunately we're still close to Europe and Macron and Meloni are very stylish dressers and unless we want Starmer to be forever placed beind the Albanian PM and the Irish Taoiseach we better join the 21st century
Roger sometimes youre so delightfully shallow we need a micrometer to measure your views.
LOL! Your posts are so well articulated that if only you had the confidence you'd realise that you don't need to repeat the same post dozens of times a day for it to be understood.
Advertising Roger. You repeat the same message endlessly until it gets into even the thickest of skulls
Name of donor: Publisher’s Association As part of a draw for MPs held by the Publisher’s Association, I received seventy children’s books with an approximate value of £900 to donate to schools and organisations in my constituency. Date interest arose: 21 December 2023
Helen Morgan for PM! For life!
I’d have to ask my wife which one, but we were helping set up a new school library. Contacted various publishers - one sent, by return, enough fiction paperbacks to fill half the shelves.
As often happens with humans, we want several things that are ultimately contradictory.
We don't want our politicians beholden to donors. That's logical.
We don't want politics to just be an activity for the mega-rich. That's democratic.
We do want things done "well", and that costs. And whilst the Starmers both have very well-paid careers, I doubt that most of us get how exponentially expensive "well" is at that sort of level. That's understandable.
We don't want the state funding politics at the level that makes the first three points work. Especially in a time of national frugality, that's reasonable.
But you can't have all four.
There is a world of corporate hospitality where this sort of thing is the norm. It's not my world, though I've occasionally been close enough to it to be aware of its existence. The answer to "why did these politicians think this was OK?" is that, in that world it is OK and the rest of us mostly don't care because we don't see it.
On top of that, there are two things now. One is that it is a time of national frugality- the maths dictates that. So these freebies look bad. (Though the Mail would be the first to whine about these politicians going to Primark.) The other is that a lot of people really resent Starmer's success. A lot of the noise has been from people, on the left and the right, who never liked him anyway. That's politics, but it means we should keep a bit of perspective.
This is not the end of this government, or even the beginning of the end. But the government, and the country, need some real politics to think about instead.
Starmer should auction all the gifts he was given and give the prooeeds to charity. You should get a good premium for provenance
There is a demand that Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others repay the donations which is rather inevitable
Labour should up the ante and ban all donations to Individual MPs, then we can see the likes of Farage and other tougher squeal.
I genuine believe all donations to mps should be banned from whatever source
Aha! So now we are getting somewhere!
I have been consistent in that for years but attempts to excuse Starmer and his cabinet are falling on deaf ears
You're on fire tonight BigG. Do you remember when a beer and a curry at the miner's welfare in Durham was worse than multiple lockdown (I didn't think they were) parties in Downing Street?
There are many who think Starmer got away with that night (cut)
Well you did for starters.
Please show me where I came to that conclusion
By the very fact you wrote your post before last.
Because I pass a comment that is general knowledge does not mean I concur with it
Starmer was found to have behaved inpecabibly but unfortunately for him that cannot be said now in this crisis
What has he done wrong?
Trashed his brand
I would just add Ratner didn't do anything wrong but his brand never recovered
Ratners brand was not trashed because of personal peccadillos but because he declared his brand to be trash. Starmer's case has no relationship to that.
A better example might have been Johnson. By common consent his morality public and private stank but it appears to have done nothing to trash either the Conservative or even his own brand at the time.
But neither example really works.
Starmer has slightly dented his own reputation for probity. That's all and if he and his government play their cards right it's something no one will even remember in a few weeks. And if they do it will be put down to early days naivity
If you do a word association on me with Blair, you get Iraq first and Ecclestone second.
Interesting. But that's to do with words. Ask people to name five racing drivers and the chances are one will be Sterling Moss. Nothing to do with achievement just a super catchy name
As often happens with humans, we want several things that are ultimately contradictory.
We don't want our politicians beholden to donors. That's logical.
We don't want politics to just be an activity for the mega-rich. That's democratic.
We do want things done "well", and that costs. And whilst the Starmers both have very well-paid careers, I doubt that most of us get how exponentially expensive "well" is at that sort of level. That's understandable.
We don't want the state funding politics at the level that makes the first three points work. Especially in a time of national frugality, that's reasonable.
But you can't have all four.
There is a world of corporate hospitality where this sort of thing is the norm. It's not my world, though I've occasionally been close enough to it to be aware of its existence. The answer to "why did these politicians think this was OK?" is that, in that world it is OK and the rest of us mostly don't care because we don't see it.
On top of that, there are two things now. One is that it is a time of national frugality- the maths dictates that. So these freebies look bad. (Though the Mail would be the first to whine about these politicians going to Primark.) The other is that a lot of people really resent Starmer's success. A lot of the noise has been from people, on the left and the right, who never liked him anyway. That's politics, but it means we should keep a bit of perspective.
This is not the end of this government, or even the beginning of the end. But the government, and the country, need some real politics to think about instead.
I would dispute that some of this is 'the norm' in modern business. If you work for any large UK company then you will have to do the very boring and seemingly pointless ethics courses every year. These define quite strictly what you can and cannot accept as corporate gifts and what you have to report. Basically any gift of any value must be declared and any gift (or combination of gifts) with a value of over £100 is usually banned. The rules are even stricter if you are in any position that might have influence - tendering, legal, finance etc. Of course this is not fixed by law and depends entirely on the company concerned but well run modern companies are extremely hot on this stuff and it is those companies I would expect our elected leadership to emulate.
As often happens with humans, we want several things that are ultimately contradictory.
We don't want our politicians beholden to donors. That's logical.
We don't want politics to just be an activity for the mega-rich. That's democratic.
We do want things done "well", and that costs. And whilst the Starmers both have very well-paid careers, I doubt that most of us get how exponentially expensive "well" is at that sort of level. That's understandable.
We don't want the state funding politics at the level that makes the first three points work. Especially in a time of national frugality, that's reasonable.
But you can't have all four.
There is a world of corporate hospitality where this sort of thing is the norm. It's not my world, though I've occasionally been close enough to it to be aware of its existence. The answer to "why did these politicians think this was OK?" is that, in that world it is OK and the rest of us mostly don't care because we don't see it.
On top of that, there are two things now. One is that it is a time of national frugality- the maths dictates that. So these freebies look bad. (Though the Mail would be the first to whine about these politicians going to Primark.) The other is that a lot of people really resent Starmer's success. A lot of the noise has been from people, on the left and the right, who never liked him anyway. That's politics, but it means we should keep a bit of perspective.
This is not the end of this government, or even the beginning of the end. But the government, and the country, need some real politics to think about instead.
I'd make two comments. Starmer has never been popular but he still won a thumping majority. At the next election he will I believe be judged on whether his government was better than the previous lot. He needs to deliver in other words. Free pairs of glasses as Leader of the Opposition years ago won't be a factor.
As often happens with humans, we want several things that are ultimately contradictory.
We don't want our politicians beholden to donors. That's logical.
We don't want politics to just be an activity for the mega-rich. That's democratic.
We do want things done "well", and that costs. And whilst the Starmers both have very well-paid careers, I doubt that most of us get how exponentially expensive "well" is at that sort of level. That's understandable.
We don't want the state funding politics at the level that makes the first three points work. Especially in a time of national frugality, that's reasonable.
But you can't have all four.
There is a world of corporate hospitality where this sort of thing is the norm. It's not my world, though I've occasionally been close enough to it to be aware of its existence. The answer to "why did these politicians think this was OK?" is that, in that world it is OK and the rest of us mostly don't care because we don't see it.
On top of that, there are two things now. One is that it is a time of national frugality- the maths dictates that. So these freebies look bad. (Though the Mail would be the first to whine about these politicians going to Primark.) The other is that a lot of people really resent Starmer's success. A lot of the noise has been from people, on the left and the right, who never liked him anyway. That's politics, but it means we should keep a bit of perspective.
This is not the end of this government, or even the beginning of the end. But the government, and the country, need some real politics to think about instead.
I'd make two comments. Starmer has never been popular but he still won a thumping majority. At the next election he will I believe be judged on whether his government was better than the previous lot. He needs to deliver in other words. Free pairs of glasses as Leader of the Opposition years ago won't be a factor.
Thing is, the British public not only don't do gratitude but they also tend to have short memories for good things while remembering the bad.
I know the politicos always blather on about their predecessors/opponents/random Russians but it doesn't actually usually cut much ice.
So Starmer will need to show a track record of actual good governance and also offer future positives to win again on that basis - certainly to win a large majority.
Can he do it? So far the signs are not terribly encouraging.
Went to Essex hustings tonight with the Tory leadership candidates. Cleverly was affable as ever and wanted to reach out to the nation as a whole and see off Reform by being true to Conservative values not becoming Reform while projecting party unity too.
Badenoch was sharper than I expected, thoughtful and emphasised the need for the party to sell itself again based on conservative values not just be managerial. Jackie Doyle Price was representing Tugendhat who had another engagement and made clear that the party couldn’t just speak to itself but needed to reach out to the whole country and those Tories who stayed home more than Reform.
Jenrick was the most slick and polished, a strong speaker and orator and told a few jokes. My main fear is he could be Hague2, excellent at Question Time and his conference speech but maybe got the role too young. Jenrick was also the most rightwing, wanted to move away from Net Zero to protect our industrial base, wanted to leave the ECHR and deport immigrants etc. however he was saying some good things about building new homes for younger people too
Thanks for the report. Do I take it from your phrasing that you are against moving away from Net Zero to protect (what's left of) our industrial base? Why?
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mDKRggaF-k&ab_channel=MSNBC
At an anti-semitism event too.
This has to start impacting Russian operations soon...
A better example might have been Johnson. By common consent his morality public and private stank but it appears to have done nothing to trash either the Conservative or even his own brand at the time.
But neither example really works.
Starmer has slightly dented his own reputation for probity. That's all and if he and his government play their cards right it's something no one will even remember in a few weeks. And if they do it will be put down to early days naivity
The donations can be accepted because they're good, and honest.
https://x.com/androcaine/status/1837351421835944357
Donations to local parties are fine
Donations to specific MPs for office/research costs are probably ok
Buying someone a nice suit is a no
Buying someone’s wife or partner a nice set of clothes is definitely off as is lending them a flat for a holiday etc.
It’s really not that difficult
The latter is ok. The former is not. It creates the reality or potential for a sense of personal obligation to an individual.
What about, say, the £25k Ed Davey accepted for additional care costs for his disabled son?
But once he become PM It never occurred to me who would be footing the bill.........
If it was a pop group or a film shoot you wouldn't be able to move for hair make up wardrobe and stylists. In America they routinely supply a masseuse as well. Would we expect our Prime Minister to arrive for an international meeting with the creased gear he happened to throw on that morning?
People don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes which is understandable. Perhaps instead of apologising Starmer could take this opportunity to explain to a very parochial audience that what we see on TV takes a lot of work from a lot of people and if they want it to be paid for from the treasury rather than a private donor so be it.
I have sympathy for him requiring help. But it probably should be through public channels *if* the extra help is required as part of his duties as MP and leader of a party.
Then the question becomes why others with disabled children and demanding jobs don't get such help...
I don’t know the specific of Ed Davey’s donation, so not commenting on that specifically, but is basic rule is if it is exclusivity for work purposes then it is ok, if not then it isn’t. So in general, accepting care costs sounds like a “no”
ISTR Tom Watkins gave Bros cars, which came out of their earnings a couple of years later. They hadn't realised. Whilst the Pet Shop Boys were still living in small flats after they'd had four Number Ones, because they realised the way the industry worked, and refused many of the gifts.
A bit of support from paid carers in order to free him from these tasks may well be pound for pound the most effective bit of campaign support in modern British political history.
US to award $3 billion to 25 projects for battery manufacturing sector
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-award-3-billion-25-projects-battery-manufacturing-sector-2024-09-20/
Follows a similar investment in 2022.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-awards-28-billion-ev-battery-grid-projects-2022-10-19/
@Roger
Photo of a rather dapper Albanian PM with slick suited Rishsi. A hobbit meets a giant
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/edi-rama-britons-rishi-sunak-prime-minister-commons-b2306913.html
Politics is about presentation, and that requires stylists, media training, costuming etc. PBers can do their work at a keyboard in their underpants, surrounded by dirty plates and empty bottles of Shiraz, but politicians cannot.
NEW THREAD
We don't want our politicians beholden to donors. That's logical.
We don't want politics to just be an activity for the mega-rich. That's democratic.
We do want things done "well", and that costs. And whilst the Starmers both have very well-paid careers, I doubt that most of us get how exponentially expensive "well" is at that sort of level. That's understandable.
We don't want the state funding politics at the level that makes the first three points work. Especially in a time of national frugality, that's reasonable.
But you can't have all four.
There is a world of corporate hospitality where this sort of thing is the norm. It's not my world, though I've occasionally been close enough to it to be aware of its existence. The answer to "why did these politicians think this was OK?" is that, in that world it is OK and the rest of us mostly don't care because we don't see it.
On top of that, there are two things now. One is that it is a time of national frugality- the maths dictates that. So these freebies look bad. (Though the Mail would be the first to whine about these politicians going to Primark.) The other is that a lot of people really resent Starmer's success. A lot of the noise has been from people, on the left and the right, who never liked him anyway. That's politics, but it means we should keep a bit of perspective.
This is not the end of this government, or even the beginning of the end. But the government, and the country, need some real politics to think about instead.
I know the politicos always blather on about their predecessors/opponents/random Russians but it doesn't actually usually cut much ice.
So Starmer will need to show a track record of actual good governance and also offer future positives to win again on that basis - certainly to win a large majority.
Can he do it? So far the signs are not terribly encouraging.