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

^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

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

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

Plus more sustainable

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

@Blossomtoes - exactly. And he's saving tax payer money.

Ultimately the Johnson's paid for the flat decorations and furnishings themselves and refunded the donors (and your link shows an estimated bill, not what they decided to purchase). Johnson's decision to refund the donors was precipitated by Angela Rayner complaining to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards asking for an investigation. Rayner also complained to the Commissioner regarding Johnson's holidays in Marbella and Mustique - therefore she should expect scrutiny of her own freebie holidays.

It isn’t irrelevant. It’s wellknown that Starmer is at the Emirates for every home game. Sunak very rarely and sporadically attended a Southampton match and it wouldn’t be public knowledge that he was going to be there.

Which is irrelevant. If it's not safe for a PM to be in the stands, why was Sunak there?

Ah yes I'm sure you did not post a word against the last gov as a 'loyal Brit'

What a load of tosh. Just because your party is now in power you can't expect everyone to stop talking about them.

And if you rejoiced in the media / posters / SM taking down the last lot so they were out you can't complain now you're in the firing line.

The parents you are talking about do have a decent level of disposable income, then, because they can afford to pay almost £2k a month in school fees. I'm sure they do make sacrifices elsewhere, as in they don't have fancy holidays or really flash cars or houses, but they have this £2k for school fees on top of mortgage/rent, food, electricity, clothing, commuting costs and so on.

As PP have said that is a lot more disposable income than most people in this country.

I would be pretty surprised if a majority of those parents, with that financial profile, couldn't get a loan for £4,600 (the VAT on one year's school fees) and manage to pay it off over a year or two. For the year our theoretical child is in Y12, those parents would have expected to pay £23,000 out of their income for school fees until Labour were elected and announced the details of VAT on school fees; so it would be unusual if they couldn't pay £5,000 instead.

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

No, no, no, no! I absolutely don’t want taxpayers footing the bill for frocks.

'Twas ever thus.

I think the "Starmer didn’t win, the Tories lost" comes from the polling figures that show that in many constituencies Labour won the seat this time polling less votes than they lost to the Tories with in the previous election. People didn't rush out in their droves to vote Labour and drive their polling numbers up from last time, rather folk who would have voted Tory simply didn't vote at all.

There are costs attached to certain roles that should be treated as official expenses, with an allowance attached. Cabinet ministers and their partners need to be smartly turned out for certain occasions such as state visits, summits, memorials, receptions etc.. It is perfectly reasonable for female PM or wife of PM to receive an official dress allowance to equip them for occasions when they are representing the Govt or country- same goes for senior Military and Diplomatic figures and their spouses. Military commanders receive allowances for entertainment as they are expected to provide hospitality- I'm sure the same principle applies to senior politicians.

What we shouldn't be seeing is private gifts and donations to cover the costs of national office.

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

@TeenagersAngst - how many times did Sunak go to football? Answer, not many. Starmer goes very often.

You think Johnson bought his own clothes? Johnson didn't even buy his own food.

That's what you get when you half listen to a story. Starmer is a massive Arsenal fan & has had a season ticket for a very long time as has his son. He still buys these season tickets but Arsenal suggested they give him a box so the security costs to the tax payer are less. So he still pays & he costs the tax payer less.

Must mix in different circles to me then. I know nobody who can ever afford private education. Could never accumulate £23k in one year. Hell, it’s not much less than my entire annual wage. You’re normalising something beyond the means of most.

This is a false equivalence to the point of absurdity

You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb

They shouldn’t be allowed gifts.

GMC tells doctors to decline gifts over £10 but politicians can accept a value of £20000. It is unethical, no one believes you can’t buy influence.