The Irony.. PM's donation was for ‘son to study for GCSEs’

Comms people, desperate to justify their roles in the post election landscape I think.

Why are there constant threads on here ATM trying to paint the Keir as Boris Johnson?

Is it disgruntled Tory voters sulking or something more organised by a Comms team linked somehow to Tory Party support?

I was thinking of politicians and their plus ones generally, not just KS and his wife.

I actually don’t know how many formal outfits the average MP / minister would need. But if it’s a lot, and they’re photographed a lot, it could mean that even hiring outfits (assuming they’re a standard shape and size) gets expensive quickly. I think it anyone needs non-standard clothing for work it shouldn’t come out of their personal income.

But not all politicians have the same background.

Your post said politicians. Starmer is the politician, his wife is not.

If you did mean dresses not suits for the spouse then they can be hired. It's wasteful to need a new formal dress to wear only once.

He did what most of us do. The best we can for our kids. 🤷‍♀️

You may have a very different job to me, but I certainly don’t have a wardrobe with appropriate formal evening outfits.

Day to day workwear, yes.

Why would you need different clothes to be PM?

A few suits and no one will care or notice, like any other well paid job

But not all politicians have the same background.

If it is a genuine work requirement to have different clothes, there should either be a clothing allowance or acceptance of donations. The latter is less costly to the taxpayer and there could be conditions placed around what is allowed e.g. donations from British firms only, only 1 outfit accepted per firm per year etc

I do not. KS is a rich man and his wife comes from a wealthy family.

Would all those parents carping about being happy with the VAT on education, be happy to increase their taxes to improve all state schools. No. Thought not.

He did what most of us do. The best we can for our kids. 🤷‍♀️

If the people donating know it might go on party frocks then that's fine

PM suggests £20,000 donation was for ‘son to study for GCSEs’ | The Independent

Sorry if there are other threads, but I did search and nothing came up.

“My boy, 16, was in the middle of his GCSEs. I made him a promise, a promise that he would be able to get to his school, do his exams, without being disturbed,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But if you’re a 16-year-old trying to do your GCSEs and it’s your one chance in life – I promised him we would move somewhere, get out of the house and go somewhere where he could be peacefully studying.

So its OK for the PM to be worried about his child's "one chance" GCSE year being disturbed ...but he's not so worried about other people's children feeling stressed during their GCSEs by introducing the private school VAT during an academic school year.

I don't have a child in private school doing their GCSEs. And I know that there are lots of people who support the VAT and those who don't.

But I think there is a midline where lots of people on both sides of the fence agree making this change during an academic year is not fair on the kids in key exam years...and I am one of them because not all parents have a Lord Alli to step in to ensure their child's "one chance" GCSE year is not being disturbed.

For Voting:

Unreasonable - I am with Keir and I am not really bothered with other people's children's "one chance" school year being interrupted.

Not Unreasonable - I agree Labour should not interrupt the academic school year and introduce the VAT in September 2025.

Yes, however Ofqual said that loads of state school kids were learning in schools with inadequate facilities and didn’t even have teachers so if they gave special consideration to the RAAC kids then they’d need to justify not giving special consideration to all the kids disadvantaged by the various deficits in state schools.

And I guess I can see their point.

If only there were the same number of threads about those issues as the VAT one….

Or they could pay for it themselves or hire dresses, others have and it was fine

Plus more sustainable

@Alltheprettyseahorses Really ? You’ve got a pretty low bar of tolerance for labour and a mountainous one for the tories. Did you give a toss about Johnson back in the day ? And reading previous posts you’re not exactly neutral are you ?
How will you cope with ‘honest’ Jenrick when he’s elected opposition leader ?

but its should have happened from the get go, NOT "oh we won't do it any more now we have been caught out"

And another £10k

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/04/boris-johnson-accepts-another-10000-in-accommodation-from-tory-donor

And yet more - Lord Bamsford really loves throwing money at Johnson.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/boris-johnson-now-living-20m-8016441

Yeah, that’s one area that I think it’s perfectly fine to accept donations.

Absolutely. And that’s exactly what should be happening. And I expect will from here on in.

^Sir Keir spoke to Sir Laurie on his first day in Downing Street “to have a discussion with him about standards and the enforcement of standards”.
The prime minister said the importance of this had been impressed upon his ministers too.^

“I was really clear with the cabinet that standards apply. I made it clear the ministerial code, they will be receiving a copy of it, and it will have the Nolan Principles inside and alongside it.”

The so-called Nolan Principles were first set out almost 30 years ago and aim to set a moral template against which those in high office should judge their actions.

The Seven Principles of Public Life as they are also known, are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

“That is the standards I expect of them. As I’ve said throughout, people falling short of the required standards will face consequences, as you would expect,” the prime minister said.

Missing out on a few Arsenal football games wouldn't come under the definition of 'selflessness' then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng8l9klrvo

I was replying to the other poster who thinks that most private school parents were so wealthy they could not only accumulate £23k in a year but they could also accumulate future years in fees in advance.

I’m not normalising anything at all. But yes private school fees are beyond the means of most. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

I think its fair enough. It's got to be shit being the son of a potential prime minister with cameras following the family's move. Any celebrity or public figure would do the same if they could.
The VAT thing is a separate issue