Sir Keir Starmer declares gifts and freebies totalling more than £100,000 - the highest of any MP

[TealTraybake]

Perhaps the Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire needs his freebies because MPs aren’t paid enough. Or perhaps he’s just the knight commander of the most astonishing hypocrisy.

And yet, oddly, rarely end up on HIGNFY…

The Guardian

Both the Conservatives and Labour are coalitions of factions, Conservatives tend to do their infighting behind closed doors whilst the Labour factions revel in fighting like cats in a sack at every public opportunity. It's why neither of them wants electoral reform.

It will be interesting to see what the Conservatives inflict on themselves with the current leadership contest - will they go with one of the batshit right-wing ultra-radical Conservative options and chase Reform, or will they go for one of the personality vacuum slight-centrist candidates and hope that Reform takes the ultra-fringe off their hands and lets them get back to mainstream politics.
__

One of the issues with Prime Ministers of any party is that as a country we pay them such shit wages for the responsibility and pressure that goes with the job. Just £177k/year for a 24/7/52 job, with the ultimate responsibility for the security and welfare of the nation? And (according to this thread) you're supposed to cover your clothing and appearance (and that of your spouse) when representing the UK on the world stage? - it should be at least double that plus use of a wardrobe representing the UK tailoring and fashion industry whenever you walk out the door in the role.

You’re on 🔥

Would that I were. Sadly a light scan of the daily news provides immediate feedback on the current Labour scam.

I'm actually not against increasing the wage. However, they are politicians and not models. Like the vast majority of world leaders they are not voted in for their looks and there is no earthly need to supply them with designer gear. Smart is more than good enough.

I remember some cartoonists and comedians pre GE lamenting Labour wouldn't give them enough fodder as they'd been used to

Looks like there's loads and increasing

Bring back a non-woke Spitting Image.

One of the issues with Prime Ministers of any party is that as a country we pay them such shit wages for the responsibility and pressure that goes with the job. Just £177k/year for a 24/7/52 job, with the ultimate responsibility for the security and welfare of the nation? And (according to this thread) you're supposed to cover your clothing and appearance (and that of your spouse) when representing the UK on the world stage? - it should be at least double that plus use of a wardrobe representing the UK tailoring and fashion industry whenever you walk out the door in the role.

I doubt you were complaining about the PM's poverty wages when Johnson was having his Downing Street refurb paid for. I wouldn't object to them getting paid more but as a matter of principle I don't think they should be able to receive freebies of any description. When the Tories were doing it Angela Rayner was very vocal about asking what the donors expected in return.

They're all shockingly bad now, I can't imagine what the quality of PM candidates would be like if we made style an important priority. They need to look professional, that is all. We have the royal family to be clothes horses for British fashion.

We are not American, the PM's spouse does not have an official role so they can either stay at home or buy their own clothes if they chose to turn up at photo ops.

Like many others you are missing the point, they have removed the WFA and are hinting at a punishing budget for all of us whilst accepting gifts worth thousands. You may not think the salary reflects the responsibility of the job but it is enough to live on.

Like many others you are missing the point, they have removed the WFA and are hinting at a punishing budget for all of us whilst accepting gifts worth thousands. You may not think the salary reflects the responsibility of the job but it is enough to live on.

Excuse me if I struggle to get too excited about the WFA. Where were the pensioners with their triple-lock inflation-proof state pensions when public sector employees were asked forbearance on their pay due to austerity? Where were they when young people's mental health support services were being dismantled? Pensioners have been insulated from austerity and have provided very little support to those that bore the brunt of it. I can also remember many better-off pensioners complaining that they didn't need it when it was introduced, yet they're now complaining it's being taken away (incidentally, getting a moan in at a Labour government at both ends).

PC is a very low bar to set for means testing WFA and that bar needs to be raised higher if a better mechanism can be found that doesn't wipe out the savings in administrative costs. But in principal there's nothing wrong with means testing it. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't one of the rabbits Reeve's pulls out of the hat when the details are announced.

Exactly this.

That lack of sensitivity may serve you well, if the last ten weeks are anything to go by.

Labour are in power now, not the Tories.

Time to take ownership.

I expect the whole Labour conference will be full of ‘but the tories’.. could earn a fortune on a ‘but the tories’ bingo. The scousers might love that.

How have pensioners been insulated from austerity? Do you think they weren't affected by cuts to services? They will also be affected by rising costs of living but without the possibility of increasing their income.

What do you mean, "where were the pensioners when....." I don't recall them campaigning for others to have less so they could have more. You sound like one of those people who blames pensioners for the Tories and are rather enjoying seeing them punished by Labour.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the WFA being means tested but it's now limited to those whose income is below basic state pension which means many people will suffer without it. Perhaps you have forgotten why it was introduced.

What you didn't see though was Tory supporters turning on their party leaders e.g any criticism of Partygate was countered with "Kier had a beer"

That seems to be the difference here, Labour voters/supporters are all critical of this gift taking, even if its all within the rules.

Perhaps now, much like after the expenses, they'll be some real x party agreemetn on changing the system?

Still reading through tft but you’ve been very brave criticising Labour on here…flicks back to page 1

Erm Partygate was a big reason they lost the election, so their supporters were critical and absolutely did abandon them at the GE.

Some Labour supporters may be critical of the gift taking but you only have to look at this thread, and indeed your own comment, to see excuses and justification for Labour MP's acting without integrity. "What about the Tories....", "its within the rules..." etc etc. It's just a desperate attempt to hold onto a misguided idea that Labour are morally superior and voting for them makes you better people, it doesn't.

I would like to see changes to the rules but unlike you I'm not naïve enough to believe they will all (by which I mean politicians from all parties) vote to deny themselves freebies. They'll collude together to produce some sort of rules/guidance which sounds good but will maintain the status quo.

It is a bit like that although outside mn people are having a good go

Yes, and when you read the criticism in the comments section of the Guardian, FT and BBC, you know Labour are in trouble.

I’m trouble? In what way?
No rules broken.
Rapid acceptance of areas where they weren’t as good as they should have been.
Massive majority - this won’t upset that.
You need to accept that they won the election and aren’t going anywhere until at least the next one.

The massive majority does not make them Teflon.

The unions will put their feet to the fire over the WFA and there will doubtless be policy rebellions.

The markets will judge them on 30th October.

Continued adverse headlines will see Starmers popularity rating continue to plummet.

Govt doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

Its one thing to win, another to govern.

Yeah I agree he's made so much of his politics being virtuous and emphasising humility and service. It feels like a proper dose of hypocrisy that he's accepted SO many gifts. even though he may have followed the rules. And I voted Labour. It also shows he's a bit shitter at politics that I had thought, the 'optics' of this are terrible.

How long can labour and their loyal "fans" keep dining out on the "yeah, but the Tories this and that" line? It's already wearing thin. Now, I don't really do politics anymore because as I said up thread I think the whole lot in Westminster are the same; slippery self serving power hungry liars and so far this new government are only reinforcing that impression. This expenses and gifts scandal so soon after the heating allowance cuts has been an absolute disaster.

There’s nothing here. Nothing to precipitate anything significant.
Edit: and nobody knows in which direction judgement will fall from the markets after the budget yet. Are you basing this on silly rumours?

@DogInATent many well off pensioners have been quite vocal in agreeing they don’t need the WFA. Unfortunately there is a huge bunch of pensioners who neither receive PC or would be considered well off. I don't think an 80 year old living alone on £12K is wealthy! Most people can see that, and I’m gobsmacked that there are Labour politicians who can’t. And the triple lock doesn’t do much for women like me, many of us don’t get a full state pension, mine is around half of the post 2016 amount. However, my small occupational pension takes us above the PC cut off.

As a public sector worker I earned more than I had done in the equivalent private sector job, and if like many had worked there for 30/40 years, I’d have had a great occupational pension. There are jobs in the private sector that pay more, but often they don’t come with such good benefits. That used to be an accepted trade off.