Starmer took donor’s gifts because there is no taxpayer funding for clothes

[MrsRobinsonsHandprints]

Mind-blowing

This is how David Lammy excused it

So what? You're surely not trying to say that Starmer is the first ever PM to have done this?

Nobody funds my work clothes either. I need some new office clothes for the winter - would someone like to sub me?

No, but they have to declare it. Otherwise it looks dodgy AF. Hence the problem here.

Was there taxpayer funding for his clothes when he was a lawyer?

I remember a female barrister lost a case on this, she had claimed that her court clothes were so frumpy she would never wear them anywhere other than work.

I think it’s not as simple as that. His work requires certain clothes for different occasions, would he be just an ordinary MP there would be no expectations like this. The same applies to his wife, it’s not about her wanting clothes personally it’s about her needing clothes for events connected with HIS job. She is expected to do certain things.
The elephant in the room is that the previous PM ( and their wives) were rich, very rich in comparison with Stamers.
Let’s not pretend that there is no issue. Yes, Stamer got high salary and some expenses covered. However his job brings a lot of expectations for the whole family and a lots of restrictions for the whole family. I spent a few weekends recently looking for new glasses , I don’t think Stamer got so much free time.
Also our local uni vice chancellor got twice higher salary then PM, plus accommodation and some expenses covered (it was in our local press recently) and believe me his (vice chancellor’s ) job less hectic and demanding.
But of course Stamer should follow all rules how to declare things.

I don’t mind them taking the gifts. It was a big moment, with a long run up

but they should have been declared

and there shouldn’t have been any quid per pro

I am quite sure they are able to afford to buy clothes. His wealth is reported to be between £3 million - £7 million.

What like a donor having the run of No 10 in exchange?

That's the main issue here, not the dresses.

There shouldn't have been anything in return for the clothes is the issue.
And he really can afford clothes for himself and his family.

They all seem to do it - and not just PMs. Doesn't make it ok though.

I want to become an MP. Decent salary, second home, excellent expenses, gold-plated pension, free heating, council tax, and subsidised food.

There is no way he gave away a pass to No 10 for just some clothes and a pair of glasses.

This is a smoke screen. It needs more digging. If only there were some journalists left in the UK.

Just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. In a week when pensioners were losing their WFA, it doesn't look good. And to say they accepted the gift because it wasn't taxpayer funded is quite ridiculous. I suppose Lammy wore scruffy trainers with his suit on official business because of this reason too.

I was really disillusioned to hear that Starmer and his wife had accepted these gifts and failed to declare them. He was scathing about Boris Johnson having accepted curtain money in similar circumstances - and rightly so.

As a former Director of Public Prosecutions he understands the need for complete integrity in public office. A civil servant accepting these kinds of gifts would be sacked.

If the PM and spouse require a clothing allowance to perform their duties, they should make a case for one. But it is nonsense to suggest he cannot afford to clothe himself and his family. He has his PM salary, his MP salary (£166786) his DPP retirement income, and a free home and free utilities in Downing Street. His wife has an income of around £50000. They will also have income streams.

David Lammy ( the man who thinks men can grow a cervix with the right kind of hormone treatment) trying to defend the indefensible would be laughable if it were not so indicative of a lack of any moral compass.

Pmsl at the notion that the Starmers can't afford to buy clothes suitable for the events they are expected to attend.

When the Tories did this sort of thing, Labour were very quick to criticise. Plus ça change...

Many previous PMs were only rich after their period in power. Funny that. And Starmer is himself a multi millionaire.

Major, Bliar, May, Brown were not rich when in power, and still managed to buy their own clothes, and clothes for their spouses. Even Bliar and Johnson, the biggest grifters in politics, didn't beg donors for clothes. Indeed, many prime ministers spouses rented clothes for such occasions because they couldn't afford/justify buying.

In any other walk of professional or business life, accepting gifts of this scale is absolutely banned. Why should politics be different? It's corrupt.

It’s a ridiculous thing to say and looks like a grift. Stop with the whataboutery

Quite.

Usual mechanism for this would be to buy cloths and expense it assuming it's for official duties.

Welcome to era of integrity.

It's not about the clothes.
It's about not declaring them.

They've not been in 5 minutes and they're showing us who they are. As for David Lammy, he's just an embarrassment.

Well no. But the point is that Sir Keir and labour have held themselves up to be the party of integrity and have been blasting the tories for all their sleaze and spin and dishonesty.

So it sticks in the craw a bit to see how blatantly hypocritical they bloody are.

I voted Labour, by the way.

I wouldn’t do it for a blank cheque.

Where are these millions supposed to have come from? He has long had salaried jobs. He got £200k a year as DPP and a lot less as an MP & leader of the opposition and still doesn’t earn that as PM, which is mad.

The Guardian article in this was quite interesting as it looked at other PMs wives and presidents First Ladies and what they did.

I think it’s bizarre that no one has mentioned how it just adds to the unfairness of being a woman; that if any of them dared to wear an outfit more than a few times they’d be lambasted in the popular media, but equally a nice outfit for two events a week adds up very quickly.

Men don’t have this problem as a few suits and different shirts seem to get them through an entire year.

I always though Michelle Obama was nicely dressed but apparently the vast majority of clothes were loaned to her, and Sarah Brown says in her memoirs of similar and paying a token rental for them.

I do feel that it should be properly attributed, perhaps direct from the designer rather than a middle-man donor?

Urrgh they're all corrupt AF and ready to be bought by the highest bidder.

Personally I'd bad all notifications to political parties/politicians above say £20 per month. Big donors aren't stupid, and don't give the money for nothing, it buys influence and they get what they pay for, which is often a seat in the HoL.
Having said that, the wives/husbands of leaders do have additional expenses and I'd honestly rather the tax payer funded things like clothes allowances than big donors. Government, of all colours, should work for the people and I'm sick of big donors wants trumping the public needs.