Page 17 | to believe Lady Starmer should pay for her own clothes and personal stylists?

LargeDeviation · 2024-09-15T10:11:09+00:00

[[https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-faces-investigation-over-possible-breach-of-parliamentary-rules-after-labour-donor-pays-for-wifes-clothes-13215216 https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-faces-investigation-over-possible-breach-of-parliamentary-rules-after-labour-donor-pays-for-wifes-clothes-13215216]] And Keir Starmer should have paid himself for his 'several pairs of glasses' and £19K worth of work clothes? On top of that there was £20K for accommodation for Sir Keir and another 'similar sum' on 'private office' costs. Purely by coincidence, it seems the donor was given a Downing Street security pass allowing easy access to the corridors of power without any role in government. And yes, Carrie and Boris Johnson should have paid for their wallpaper and hampers too, that is just as sleazy.

Dreamingofgoldfinchlane · 15/09/2024 15:11

Buildingthefuture · 15/09/2024 13:11

YANBU. Those “with the broadest shoulders” should buy their own fucking clothes!l
Kier Starmer is going to deliver a god awful budget in a few weeks and he’s going to do it wearing glasses and clothes that someone else paid for? If he cannot fathom how utterly hypocritical that is, he has no business trying to run the country.
All of them are a shower of self absorbed, self serving twats. I despair!!!

Lammy's response is priceless - Starmer was essentially 'forced' to take donor's gifts because there's no taxpayer funding for clothes. How in hell does he think the 95% of the population not on Starmer's astronomical salary manage to clothe themselves. Unbelievably out of touch with reality.

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:54

Buildingthefuture · 15/09/2024 13:11

YANBU. Those “with the broadest shoulders” should buy their own fucking clothes!l
Kier Starmer is going to deliver a god awful budget in a few weeks and he’s going to do it wearing glasses and clothes that someone else paid for? If he cannot fathom how utterly hypocritical that is, he has no business trying to run the country.
All of them are a shower of self absorbed, self serving twats. I despair!!!

Haha, a brilliant take on it.

OP posts:

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:51

Birdscratch · 15/09/2024 13:06

The security pass is definitely more of a concern but I think it’s a can of worms the Conservatives will regret opening. Somewhere right now there are journalists searching through records to see exactly who was given access to number 10 in the last decade.

Yes, if the Tories gave out security passes to donors (as I'm sure they did) they need to be held to account too.

It doesn't mean it's OK for Starmer - especially as he painted himself as Sir Clean Hands KC, the man who (correctly) excoriated Boris Johnson for having donors pay for his wallpaper, and who called on Rishi Sunak to resign for bringing a birthday cake to the office.

OP posts:

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:47

Birdscratch · 15/09/2024 13:01

I’m completely happy with a donor providing a “business” wardrobe for them both as long as it’s declared.

They’re under scrutiny, particularly her, by people like oddandelsewhere saying ‘her clothes are inappropriate ( flutter sleeves) and extremely cheap looking.’

The alternative is you only have PMs with massive inherited wealth - or those who marry into it like Rishi Sunak.

As Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir earned around £144K per year.

Even ignoring Lady Victoria's salary entirely, do you really think that a household earning £144K per year cannot afford to buy nice clothes?

OP posts:

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:42

ThinWomansBrain · 15/09/2024 12:32

Also pretty disgusting that he is apparently paying legal advice on what and what not to declare - why not disclose anything that is conceivably a gift.

Where did you see this? I sincerely hope that his legal advice isn't funded by the taxpayer.

OP posts:

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:37

PixieMcGraw · 15/09/2024 12:13

In the last five years, Starmer has accepted £76,000 of freebies including clothes, glasses, sport tickets etc. It has all been declared afaik but it definitely leaves a bad taste. In my last job in the public sector I wasn't allowed to take anything other than token gifts (pens, diary etc).
He's very well paid. It's a terrible look. Especially when we are all being told to expect more pain.

Yes. There is a difference between donations to a political party, and donations to personal politicians. Both are quite dodgy, but the former are much easier to scrutinise. Personal donations are far more open to abuse.

OP posts:

Original poster

LargeDeviation · 15/09/2024 14:35

HeySummerWhereAreYou · 15/09/2024 11:42

I have to disagree... I know a couple of people who are very close to me, who have youtube channels and they have 10s of 1000s of fans/subscribers. Actually 70,000 to 80,000 subscribers. And they are able to send them gifts.

The one has got a 'Throne Wishlist' and has had something like £5000 worth of gifts sent to them just this last couple of months ... If people are donating things and giving things, and it's not affecting anyone else. I don't see a problem with it.

Starmer's wife has had this given by a donator. Can't see the problem.

Freebies for influencers/Youtubers from their fans are very different to freebies from political donors, especially if they are not declared correctly or declared late. Donors have the ability to use their preferential access to press for favours. How exactly did the donor get his security pass to Number 10 - who approved it, and why?

OP posts:

JudgeJ · 15/09/2024 13:52

I thought they were meant to be different from the Tories.

Bless! I would suggest you look into some of the Labour politicians during the 60s and even later! The reason that more is made of what the Conservatives do/did is that the left wing media make sure which lot get the most publicity. All the negative publicity about 'partygate' was immense where as 'beergate', ie Labour doing exactly the same, was brushed under the carpet.

Creamcarpetandwhitewalls · 15/09/2024 13:50

Buildingthefuture · 15/09/2024 13:11

YANBU. Those “with the broadest shoulders” should buy their own fucking clothes!l
Kier Starmer is going to deliver a god awful budget in a few weeks and he’s going to do it wearing glasses and clothes that someone else paid for? If he cannot fathom how utterly hypocritical that is, he has no business trying to run the country.
All of them are a shower of self absorbed, self serving twats. I despair!!!

Your first sentence had me in stitches. It’s was so perfect and I was surprised that no one else mentioned it.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2024 13:46

Tombero · 15/09/2024 13:32

Very Animal Farm!

Ha Orwell seems to be coming in handy these days for a few things

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:45

mumda · 15/09/2024 13:41

Id rather someone was paying for wallpaper rather than knickers and glasses.

But in reality there should be tighter controls on what they can be bought off with.

To resurrect an old Labour wallpaper story from the Blair years:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/irvine-demanded-costly-wallpaper-1124353.html

TBF, though, Derry Irvine seemed just pompously to demand Pugin wallpaper from the public purse, not from a donor.

Irvine `demanded costly wallpaper'

THE LORD Chancellor has been accused of making misleading statements over Lords reform and the expensive refurbishment of his grace-and-favour apartment in disclosures by the wife of a former Cabinet minister.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/irvine-demanded-costly-wallpaper-1124353.html

AlisonDonut · 15/09/2024 13:44

This is exactly what socialism is about.

The rich donors pay for the poor old Prime Minister's suit and glasses and a lovely dress for the missus. Levelling up.

It's Equity. Get over it.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2024 13:41

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 15/09/2024 13:36

I used to be a tax accountant, a long time ago. I'm sure people much higher up the hierarchy than I was (I was at the bottom) were trying to anticipate what might happen, but the rest of us simply read up on the changes as they were published and got on with things then, and nobody seemed to come to any great harm. In those days there was total secrecy around the Budget. That seems to have changed quite a lot.

Show quote history

The pp is right, people will be advising and making changes based on what's likely

mumda · 15/09/2024 13:41

Id rather someone was paying for wallpaper rather than knickers and glasses.

But in reality there should be tighter controls on what they can be bought off with.

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:40

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 15/09/2024 13:36

I used to be a tax accountant, a long time ago. I'm sure people much higher up the hierarchy than I was (I was at the bottom) were trying to anticipate what might happen, but the rest of us simply read up on the changes as they were published and got on with things then, and nobody seemed to come to any great harm. In those days there was total secrecy around the Budget. That seems to have changed quite a lot.

Show quote history

I do agree that budget leaking has got a lot worse over the years - Tories as bad as any - and that’s fuelled more and more effort to dig out or invent supposed budget measures by journalists.

But we’re here.

MillyMollyMandHey · 15/09/2024 13:38

Yanbu.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 15/09/2024 13:36

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:30

Generally, yes. But there’s a whole big industry of accountants, tax planners, solicitors, estate agents and god knows who else - not least tax payers themselves - who need to anticipate changes as best they can.

One way of doing that is to read commentary in the media from political reporters and financial journalists.

There’s nothing wrong in assessing the government’s options and making the best judgements possible about likely change.

Show quote history

I used to be a tax accountant, a long time ago. I'm sure people much higher up the hierarchy than I was (I was at the bottom) were trying to anticipate what might happen, but the rest of us simply read up on the changes as they were published and got on with things then, and nobody seemed to come to any great harm. In those days there was total secrecy around the Budget. That seems to have changed quite a lot.

SleepGoalsJumped · 15/09/2024 13:35

I would agree with you IF we had a media culture which didn't vilify public figures (mostly but not exclusively women) who fail to be impeccably turned out in public. If Lady Starmer didn't have that money spent on clothes and personal stylist assistance you know there would be horrible hateful photos and commentary in certain types of newspapers and websites pouring scorn on her fashion faux pas. If a donor wants to fund goods and services to help avoid such negative publicity that's legitimate - the issue of whether such a donation is properly accounted for and proper rules to avoid bribery are followed is a separate matter but it's not a problem for costs incurred purely due to their public position being met from sources other than their personal income.

Tombero · 15/09/2024 13:32

Very Animal Farm!

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:30

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 15/09/2024 13:24

Why don't you wait till the Budget? At the moment there is a lot of speculation and no facts. Fulminate all you like if they do take away the single person reduction.

Show quote history

Generally, yes. But there’s a whole big industry of accountants, tax planners, solicitors, estate agents and god knows who else - not least tax payers themselves - who need to anticipate changes as best they can.

One way of doing that is to read commentary in the media from political reporters and financial journalists.

There’s nothing wrong in assessing the government’s options and making the best judgements possible about likely change.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2024 13:28

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:21

No doubt the journos at the Guardian and Mirror are doing that as we speak.

But it’s not the point. This government and this government’s supporters tell us how much better they are than the last lot. They plainly aren’t though.

If you’re in power you get the scrutiny. If you hold yourself out as ethical, caring and hot on rules and probity you get even more scrutiny.

Show quote history

Idk The Guardian seem equally peed off with Starmer and co which is somewhat refreshing

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 15/09/2024 13:24

ExpressCheckout · 15/09/2024 11:22

Agree that this is a nothing story.

What's more of a story is the way this 'Labour' government is, according to reputable media outlets, ready to rob people who live alone (single people, divorcees, victims of domestic violence, widows, etc.) of the 25% council tax reduction they currently receive for making less use of public services.

Why don't you wait till the Budget? At the moment there is a lot of speculation and no facts. Fulminate all you like if they do take away the single person reduction.

Rummly · 15/09/2024 13:21

Birdscratch · 15/09/2024 13:06

The security pass is definitely more of a concern but I think it’s a can of worms the Conservatives will regret opening. Somewhere right now there are journalists searching through records to see exactly who was given access to number 10 in the last decade.

No doubt the journos at the Guardian and Mirror are doing that as we speak.

But it’s not the point. This government and this government’s supporters tell us how much better they are than the last lot. They plainly aren’t though.

If you’re in power you get the scrutiny. If you hold yourself out as ethical, caring and hot on rules and probity you get even more scrutiny.

ExpressCheckout · 15/09/2024 13:16

PandoraSox · 15/09/2024 12:59

Fair enough re: the reputable sources. It is all still rumour though. Nothing concrete.

If Starmer and Reeves did do it, it would be monumentally stupid of them. People in England would lose the 25% discount. Not so the rest of the UK. Wales has already committed to keeping the discount (it is reviewing the Welsh CT system) and I bet Scotland is the same (am assuming it has the discount too). Not sure about NI system.

Which is why I think it is a rumour and won't happen. Let's see what the budget brings.

Show quote history

Agree, let's wait and see....

Buildingthefuture · 15/09/2024 13:11

YANBU. Those “with the broadest shoulders” should buy their own fucking clothes!l
Kier Starmer is going to deliver a god awful budget in a few weeks and he’s going to do it wearing glasses and clothes that someone else paid for? If he cannot fathom how utterly hypocritical that is, he has no business trying to run the country.
All of them are a shower of self absorbed, self serving twats. I despair!!!