to believe Lady Starmer should pay for her own clothes and personal stylists?

It isn’t. And there are numerous posts on this thread to prove it isn’t true. Comparisons with Partygate are facile to say the least.

That’s interesting! If it’s true, I wonder who approves these “valuations”?
I very much doubt Lord Ali has a flee pit studio, which is about all you’d get for that price in Manhattan for New Year. Do “those with the broadest shoulders” not need to pay for their holidays either?

This is so true.

Well, yes, if he’s in the habit of renting his apartment out for more than that, but if it’s his bolt hole in Manhattan she’s just covering costs and any staff surely?

I don't begrudge him what is, after all, a meaningless title for just doing his job. Not even that well, as it turns out. But it's a little naïve politically to not realise that people will judge him for it, and if one has ambitions as a labour leader, the title 'Sir' is a little incongruous.

However I am more disappointed how quickly we've gone from the clear statement in his PM acceptance speech that he and his government would be different, to more of the same and in some cases worse than before. In just 12 weeks. As a reminder, he said:

"From now on, you have a government unburdened by doctrine, guided only by the determination to serve your interest, to defy, quietly, those who have written our country off. You have given us a clear mandate and we will use it to deliver change, to restore service and respect to politics, end the era of noisy performance, tread more lightly on your lives and unite our country"

Already, almost of all that has been shown to be untrue

On the doctrine front, nationalising things that didn't need nationalising, and kowtowing to the unions lays that bare

On serving in our interest; well, that didn't last long. I'm sure accepting all the donations from those who benefit from significant policy statements was in our interest...

On writing the country off, he has been nothing but doom, gloom and negativity since assuming the role. That's not leadership.

On delivering change, it's too early to have done anything. But, that hasn't stopped them making changes that weren't even analysed...because they were doctrine driven, not part of a strategy

On restoring service and trust in politics, h's proved to be even more self serving than Johnson or Bliar

On treading more lightly on our lives, quite the contrary. This is an even more autocratic government than we feared, wanting to interfere in ever more aspect of our lives

I’ve said, and I stand by it, that the donations are a nothing story - because such donations are allowed, if declared.

I’m not convinced that the late declaration is suspicious either. It might show incompetence but I can’t see that it shows cover up.

I’ve also said that the pass issued to Lord Alli is potentially much more serious.

But these opinions are about the individual facts that have been in the papers recently.

Generally, I do not trust this government an inch. Every major political announcement it makes seems to me to be a pack of lies.

I just think that it is better to pick the criticisms with care. Something that Labour was incapable of. As @EasternStandard has rightly said, Labour is doubly stuck in the mess of its own conduct because it trumpeted its saintliness. I’d prefer it if the Tories use opposition to be a bit more grown up than Labour were.

I see on Twitter, one of Angela Rayner's declarations is being highlighted: a five night loan of Lord Ali's Manhattan apartment over last New Year, which she's valued at £1,250 - for the whole thing not per night. If it's genuine, that valuation is surely really off.

I think the point of “all the same” is not that every last MP or councillor is as corrupt as the worst, but that there is nothing between the parties. Labour, the Libs, the SNP, the Tories and the rest are just as bad as each other.

Over the years I’ve lived in areas with various Labour and Tory MPs none of whom have been exposed as wrong ‘uns. But we all know from the press, from court cases and other sources that there are bad people in politics, of every party allegiance. That’s what’s the same.

Politicians are all hypocritical, money-grabbing bastards, the lot of them.

Your local MP and many others are probably not scrutinised anywhere near as highly as Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer.

Plus the complexities of being PM means that there are more opportunities for people to make mistakes.

This is untrue. My local MP hasn’t put a foot wrong, nor have many others. Just because KS and BJ both took the mick in this regard doesn’t mean all politicians should be smeared. It is firmly KS and his wife who have shown a lack of integrity here, the rest is whataboutery.

@@ Blossomtoes of course she is entitled to use it because her husband accepted the honour. My point is that it doesn't sit squarely with having socialist principles, and even having accepted it she does not have to use the title. I don't have much time for Emily Thornberry, but admire her for not using the title that she acquired via her husband.

Many many people refuse honours every year, you can Google a list. Most are more admirable than our P.M

This is the sort of stuff that happens when you go crazy at someone for spending a few minutes in a room eating a slice of cake.

Exactly or drinking a coke at a meeting

If you whip up the public into a frenzy over that to get into power don't be surprised when your spouse's dress or your glasses get the same treatment

I have no problem in holding Labour to higher standards. I want a government that has higher standards than the last lot.

I‘m not a Labour voter, but I am surprised at how quickly they’ve already been dragged into a scandal, I had misguidedly hoped they might be a little more trustworthy.

I’m perhaps even more surprised at the ‘non-story’ comments. How can folk be sweeping this under the carpet, why aren’t we holding our politicians to a higher standard? Why aren’t we demanding better?

I work in the private sector and if a supplier or 3rd party bought me expensive gifts I’d decline (I’d have to decline due to policy but would have declined on moral ground before then) If I received these gifts, gave that person special access to my work and workplace, and then ‘forgot’ to declare the gifts and access in time, I’d be sacked for gross misconduct.

Have you not noticed the number of MN regulars who are left leaning, me included, who have most definitely not defended this?

I think you’ll find quite a few of us on the left are extremely pissed off about it and feel very let down. I know I do. It’s a completely unnecessary own goal. I’m furious.

This is the sort of stuff that happens when you go crazy at someone for spending a few minutes in a room eating a slice of cake.

I actually have some sympathy for politicians. It must be pretty hard to ensure your entire life is lived in a completely "clean" way that doesn't expose you to any sorts of corruption allegations.

But if you start holding other people to very high standards and spending all your energy and efforts focusing on that, don't be surprised when what goes around comes around.

Well not surprising people are coming to defend this sleaze. Hypocrites are like this. The only standards some on the left have is double standards,

I really can’t see that a customary knighthood for a DPP - which as far as I know Starmer uses only when he can’t avoid doing so - is anything to beat him with.

And I read that Labour staffers jokingly and affectionately call Mrs S ‘Lady Vic’.

There is a very great deal wrong with this untrustworthy government. I fully expect that a lot of the government’s political statements, promises and posturing will be found to be false and cynical. (My frontrunner for stupid and misleading promises is that Labour will ‘smash the gangs’ and thereby reduce boat landings - obviously not possible and frankly a barefaced falsehood.)

But I do think objection should be properly based. Otherwise opponents of this wretched government will be as bad and petty as Labour was in opposition, pointlessly seizing on every little thing.

I agree - they're all the same. They'll say whatever they think sounds stood until the opportunity arises for them to walk the talk, then they show that they're just as status/money/power-hungry as the next politician.

Everyone except those who know him personally (if they choose to) would call him 'Sir Keir' and I imagine he likes that position too just as much as any of the "betters".

She’s Lady Starmer and has every right to be called that. I don’t think he’s ever said “we’re all in this together”, that was Lord Cameron’s line.

@BIossomtoes I understand perfectly. No one needs to accept a knighthood just because it's always offered. Completely bizarre that you think it's acceptable to say that we're all in this together but call yourself sir. And while I agree that his friends if he has any will only call him by his first name, every time he is referred to in the media etc. it is with his title.

Delusions of grandeur, and I really hope that he and his wife don't refer to her as 'lady Vic'.

I think you misunderstand. Knighthoods are a courtesy handed to all senior civil servants who have headed up government departments. They’re completely meaningless and I don’t imagine anyone calls him anything but Keir. The clothing donation is way worse.

I don't understand how the later conversation went about how much they needed to declare.

How on earth did they not consider the donation to her declarable in the first place?

I do have some sympathy with the fact that she probably needed some help choosing clothes. And if donations for this are legal then they can choose whether to accept or not, and if they are declared then they face the inevitable questions that we are asking now.

I find it quite odd such donations are allowed as in many (most?) professions they would definitely not be.

But I agree with a pp that they don't have to cost that much because renting is an option.

The thing that riles me is they chose, in the first place, not to declare them. I find it hard to believe it was an oversight as they declared the donations for his clothes.