Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

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

223 replies

MrsRobinsonsHandprints · 16/09/2024 10:50

Mind-blowing

OP posts:
Kendodd · 16/09/2024 12:21

*ban

Kendodd · 16/09/2024 12:22

*donations!
Predictive text on phone!

Citrusandginger · 16/09/2024 12:27

I'm annoyed because I believed he was better than this. I've wanted Starmer for PM since Corbyn was elected, not to be just another politician in it for himself.

And his job requires clothes for special occasions just doesn't wash. Lots of us need fancy clothes for events associated with work. And drag our reluctant spouses along. Not only do we provide our own clothes, but we often have to pay for the dinner as well.

MrsRobinsonsHandprints · 16/09/2024 12:30

So Kier needs donations and removes the WFA.

I am politically homeless, I don't support Labour but did hope that they wouldn't be as corrupt as the Boris government.

Starmer took donor’s gifts because there is no taxpayer funding for clothes
OP posts:
CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 16/09/2024 12:31

Citrusandginger · 16/09/2024 12:27

I'm annoyed because I believed he was better than this. I've wanted Starmer for PM since Corbyn was elected, not to be just another politician in it for himself.

And his job requires clothes for special occasions just doesn't wash. Lots of us need fancy clothes for events associated with work. And drag our reluctant spouses along. Not only do we provide our own clothes, but we often have to pay for the dinner as well.

Exactly. And if it was really out of reach to buy the clothes, they could have rented outfits for far less. More environmentally friendly too. They did this because they thought they could get away with it and now they are trying to make excuses because they got caught.

SoupDragon · 16/09/2024 12:37

BrigadierEtienneGerard · 16/09/2024 11:01

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

Surely you're not trying to say that the others wouldn't have been hauled over the coals for it?

Bigfatsquirrel · 16/09/2024 12:40

Starmer has to wear suits, shirts and ties and smart shoes. Just like he would if he were a legal professional. My DH has a wardrobe full of these clothes for work. Seems Starmer could afford them in opposition, so what is all this bollocks about "he needs to dress for the country". His wife could represent British designers if she has to dress up but off the peg frocks are probably what she wears to work too.

This donor was given a security pass to No10. These thousands of pounds worth of items were not declared appropriately which is why it's all being raised now. And frankly where is the common sense to realise that accepting these items (in return for favours and security passes) when there is a tough winter ahead with rising energy prices (despite them falling 10% in France) and the screwing of pensioners, is politically idiotic and morally wrong.

His first 10 weeks have really shown what an untrustworthy, duplicitous person he is and the worst is yet to come with the budget.

In the FT today there are multiple lauded economists saying he has created a fictional straight jacket for the nations finances and hence the doom and gloom which is now feeding through into the wider economy. The heralding of higher taxes and reduced incentive to invest means more redundancies down the line (4,000 manufacturing jobs lost last week at Pprt Talbot and Grangemouth plus the unannounced knock on impact on supply chains). If you work in the private sector your pension is about to get raided (but not the 27% public sector pensions), and if you are an entrepreneur your CGT rate equalising with income tax means you take all the downside to start up and run a business but only 55% of the upside. There are many friendlier economies close by to set that business up in. This all points to a loss of jobs down the line.

Houseplanter · 16/09/2024 12:42

For someone who is very keen to keep his wife and children out of the public eye he seems equally as keen to accept freebies for his 'non public' wife.

Double standards are standard

BeyondMyWits · 16/09/2024 12:48

He's required to declare them. He didn't.

Obey the rules - then you don't look like a corrupt official accepting backhanders.

Just.like the rest of them, don't seem to think rules apply to them. Nothing changes.

caoixr · 16/09/2024 13:04

Sick, cheap and hypocritical. 1000s for some cheap nylon red frills.

pizzaHeart · 16/09/2024 13:08

2dogsandabudgie · 16/09/2024 11:35

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

I’m not saying he is not, I’m saying that it’s not so black and white.
By the way if part of his millionaire wealth is his house, it is a very nice thing but it’s a bit different.

maverickfox · 16/09/2024 13:35

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

AncientAndModern1 · 16/09/2024 13:37

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Where on earth do you think he got £10m from? We know exactly what he’s earned since he started at the DPP and it’s nothing like enough to accumulate millions! Yes he can afford to pay for a few frocks from me and em and Reiss, but he’s not a plutocrat.

Freysimo · 16/09/2024 13:39

Lady Victoria was pretty absent on the campaign trail and rarely appears now, so unsure why she needs clothes donated?

maverickfox · 16/09/2024 13:39

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

maverickfox · 16/09/2024 13:40

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

I have to say I don’t know how accurate the figures are but he isn’t poor.

AncientAndModern1 · 16/09/2024 13:40

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

No he doesn’t.

maverickfox · 16/09/2024 13:46

AncientAndModern1 · 16/09/2024 13:40

No he doesn’t.

I’m happy to be corrected. I thought this was true. Perhaps I shouldn’t believe everything I read. I’ll get my post deleted,

nearlylovemyusername · 16/09/2024 13:49

This really doesn't matter at all what Starmer's wealth and earnings are.

Labour entire election campaign was built on promise of integrity, country first, against Tory sleaze corruption etc etc.

They now give jobs to their donors, take from pensioners to pay their paymasters from unions, accept close donations in exchange for passes. And it's less than 75 days in power.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Alltheprettyseahorses · 16/09/2024 13:51

PMs Theresa May and Liz Truss never looked less than extremely smart and polished and bought their own clothes. I don't really want to reduce them to just 'wives' but as spousal examples Carrie Johnson never asked for a clothing allowance, she wore Vinted and always looked amazing, while Kate Middleton looks fantastic in Zara and M&S. What's Starmer's excuse?

Alltheprettyseahorses · 16/09/2024 13:56

pizzaHeart · 16/09/2024 13:08

I’m not saying he is not, I’m saying that it’s not so black and white.
By the way if part of his millionaire wealth is his house, it is a very nice thing but it’s a bit different.

There are threads on here where home-owning, cash-poor pensioners losing the WFA are being told they should sell their houses to be able to afford heating. If Starmer's fortune is in his house, he can do the same if he needs a suit or his wife a frock.

AncientAndModern1 · 16/09/2024 13:57

maverickfox · 16/09/2024 13:46

I’m happy to be corrected. I thought this was true. Perhaps I shouldn’t believe everything I read. I’ll get my post deleted,

Starmer helped his dad buy a field at the back of his parents’ house so his mum could fulfil her dream of running a donkey sanctuary. This was sold in 2022. Starmer got £275k for it and paid £52k in capital gains tax. Still plenty left over to pay for some suits and frocks, if he saved it. Ridiculously poor judgement to let someone else foot the bill, let alone not declare it. Lammy should have said that Starmer was busy and his staff forgot to declare it, and he was very sorry, rather than this ‘he doesn’t have a clothing allowance’ nonsense. But he can’t be a multimillionaire unless that includes his house which might be worth £2m I suppose. London house prices are mad as it’s a boring 4 bed terraced house on an ordinary street.

TheLittleOldWomanWhoShrinks · 16/09/2024 14:08

Windchimesandsong · 16/09/2024 11:40

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.

Edited

Relentless nastiness on- and offline, death threats, two of your colleagues murdered in recent years. You couldn't pay me enough.

That said, I think accepting these clothes was a mistake, not declaring it made the mistake worse, and the apparent advantages granted to the giver are very disappointing indeed.

EmpressoftheMundane · 16/09/2024 14:14

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/how-rich-is-sir-keir-starmer-and-how-did-he-make-his-fortune/ar-BB1prxOU

Might not be accurate.

In any case, he is not so hard up that he cannot dress himself. He should have declared the gifts.

MSN

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/how-rich-is-sir-keir-starmer-and-how-did-he-make-his-fortune/ar-BB1prxOU

Obeseandashamed · 16/09/2024 14:14

Could be worse... we as taxpayers pay for the royal family's wardrobe. I'm not a labour supporter anymore but if somebody else is funding it then I don't see why it's an issue.

Swipe left for the next trending thread