to believe Lady Starmer should pay for her own clothes and personal stylists?

[LargeDeviation]

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-faces-investigation-over-possible-breach-of-parliamentary-rules-after-labour-donor-pays-for-wifes-clothes-13215216

And Keir Starmer should have paid himself for his 'several pairs of glasses' and £19K worth of work clothes? On top of that there was £20K for accommodation for Sir Keir and another 'similar sum' on 'private office' costs.

Purely by coincidence, it seems the donor was given a Downing Street security pass allowing easy access to the corridors of power without any role in government.

And yes, Carrie and Boris Johnson should have paid for their wallpaper and hampers too, that is just as sleazy.

I think the point of “all the same” is not that every last MP or councillor is as corrupt as the worst, but that there is nothing between the parties. Labour, the Libs, the SNP, the Tories and the rest are just as bad as each other.

Over the years I’ve lived in areas with various Labour and Tory MPs none of whom have been exposed as wrong ‘uns. But we all know from the press, from court cases and other sources that there are bad people in politics, of every party allegiance. That’s what’s the same.

I see on Twitter, one of Angela Rayner's declarations is being highlighted: a five night loan of Lord Ali's Manhattan apartment over last New Year, which she's valued at £1,250 - for the whole thing not per night. If it's genuine, that valuation is surely really off.

I’ve said, and I stand by it, that the donations are a nothing story - because such donations are allowed, if declared.

I’m not convinced that the late declaration is suspicious either. It might show incompetence but I can’t see that it shows cover up.

I’ve also said that the pass issued to Lord Alli is potentially much more serious.

But these opinions are about the individual facts that have been in the papers recently.

Generally, I do not trust this government an inch. Every major political announcement it makes seems to me to be a pack of lies.

I just think that it is better to pick the criticisms with care. Something that Labour was incapable of. As @EasternStandard has rightly said, Labour is doubly stuck in the mess of its own conduct because it trumpeted its saintliness. I’d prefer it if the Tories use opposition to be a bit more grown up than Labour were.

I don't begrudge him what is, after all, a meaningless title for just doing his job. Not even that well, as it turns out. But it's a little naïve politically to not realise that people will judge him for it, and if one has ambitions as a labour leader, the title 'Sir' is a little incongruous.

However I am more disappointed how quickly we've gone from the clear statement in his PM acceptance speech that he and his government would be different, to more of the same and in some cases worse than before. In just 12 weeks. As a reminder, he said:

"From now on, you have a government unburdened by doctrine, guided only by the determination to serve your interest, to defy, quietly, those who have written our country off. You have given us a clear mandate and we will use it to deliver change, to restore service and respect to politics, end the era of noisy performance, tread more lightly on your lives and unite our country"

Already, almost of all that has been shown to be untrue

On the doctrine front, nationalising things that didn't need nationalising, and kowtowing to the unions lays that bare

On serving in our interest; well, that didn't last long. I'm sure accepting all the donations from those who benefit from significant policy statements was in our interest...

On writing the country off, he has been nothing but doom, gloom and negativity since assuming the role. That's not leadership.

On delivering change, it's too early to have done anything. But, that hasn't stopped them making changes that weren't even analysed...because they were doctrine driven, not part of a strategy

On restoring service and trust in politics, h's proved to be even more self serving than Johnson or Bliar

On treading more lightly on our lives, quite the contrary. This is an even more autocratic government than we feared, wanting to interfere in ever more aspect of our lives

Well, yes, if he’s in the habit of renting his apartment out for more than that, but if it’s his bolt hole in Manhattan she’s just covering costs and any staff surely?

This is so true.

That’s interesting! If it’s true, I wonder who approves these “valuations”?
I very much doubt Lord Ali has a flee pit studio, which is about all you’d get for that price in Manhattan for New Year. Do “those with the broadest shoulders” not need to pay for their holidays either?

It isn’t. And there are numerous posts on this thread to prove it isn’t true. Comparisons with Partygate are facile to say the least.

It's indefensible

So it does seem to be true, and was already commented on in newspapers a while ago.

I agree. I’ve never voted anything but Labour.

He's not hurting 😆

They can afford their own clothes. The whole thing is just so weird. WHY is this guy buying clothes and glasses for a wealthy couple?

This is overstating things, you don't need to be that wealthy to buy a few dresses and work clothes

Loads of people do it and will have comparable income / wealth and look good at work

For a high level black tie you can always rent if you won't wear it again, saves waste anyway

Exactly. She'd have gained a lot of respect by wearing her own clothes plus rented within her own budget. And why the heck Keir Starmer felt he needed a couple of free pairs of glasses, I'll never understand.

100% agree. We hadn't experienced a Labour party under scrutiny with the social media we have now and when the Tories were in power, Starmer and co kept telling us the left were so much more honest, pious, non-corrupt and people sucked it up, especially the young.

The Labour party are no friend unless you are a militant unionist ready to hold the country to ransom. Or a misfit to society, feckless or here illegally.

I think it was unwise but not indefensible. They've got a fuck ton of stuff to do, sorting outfits must be a pain in the arse. I do think there should be an allowance as wearing nice clothing is not exactly optional at that level.

I don't think this level of sleaze is in any way comparable to COVID contracts etc.

It might cost them a bit now, but surely their time in No10 is also an investment.

Every single past PM has made millions once out of office.

I do think there should be an allowance as wearing nice clothing is not exactly optional at that level.

I’m not sure I agree with this. The PM’s paid a good salary, not staggering but definitely good, salary and he is a representative of the people. He should clothe himself out of that, just like everyone else. It shouldn’t matter if his unelected spouse doesn’t look like an Instagram queen as long as she’s neat and personable. Sure, she’ll have to get togged up for the occasional black tie do but just rent then.
We have the Royal Family, who we pay handsomely, if we need anyone to showcase British fashion.

I’m a little sorry for them. It’s a hard and in many ways a thankless role. He has a massive task ahead and lots of stress and misery. The PM’s wife suffers secondhand British prime ministers are very underpaid. However, if you take the job, then you really ought to live within your means, without recourse to others.

There may be nothing illegal about what they have done/ accepted, but, as a lawyer and public servant of many years standing, it seems to me odd that the PM didn’t see that it is profoundly unwise to create the slightest perception of ‘snouts in the trough ‘, undue influence, conflict of interest etc. They did of course ‘declare ‘ the gift as required, if a little late - but really, should it have been accepted?

I think it's also worth remembering that the PM's housing costs are covered too which will include utilities, maintenance and decoration. I doubt they pay the Number 10 gardener out if their own pocket either. There will be many expenses covered by the job which everyone else has to pay for so the good, but not staggering salary, will go a lot further than someone else earning the same and paying for everything themselves.

Accepting freebies, whether for oneself or others (even if you are the King!) does leave you open to - or at least create the perception that you’re open to - undue influence / that the donor expects something in return. I wish they’d avoid that Like Caesar’s wife, please please can our leaders behave in such a way as to provide us with moral leadership, such that they’re beyond suspicion.

Everyone knows at a basic level why rich people ‘give’ gifts to politicians.

It is staggeringly naive to think this is ok. He has the power to change laws and spend tax payers money! And he’s being bought! Literally.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Kier Starmer really is the worst type of leftie - the suburban, educated male with a patronising tone and virtuous posturing. Not quite as bad as James O’Brien but cut from the same cloth. I am surprised at just how bad he actually is though, I hoped I was going to be proved wrong about him and he was harmless enough, but in the space of a few weeks he’s imprisoned people for opinions on social media (which is unbelievably bad that I am astounded it’s even happened), he’s lied about pensioners and their heating allowance and already been bribed with fancy goods by rich and powerful people,
,

This annoys me because we have it drilled into us at work to declare absolutely everything and anything from clients, to not trade stock in our SIPPs without telling HR etc etc - the list goes on and one and both DH and I stick to it religiously. So why the hell they cannot just follow the bloody rules like the rest of us? It’s incredibly annoying! One rule for them, and one rule for the rest of us.

I don’t even mind the dresses - what I mind is them being so useless not to declare it in the first place!

It is a bit ridiculous though that the royal family have a huge budget for wardrobe and the PM and wife don’t? Is that really true? Because the royals being turned out immaculately does create an expectation somehow. Also why not showcase like young fashion, for example. Victoria could pull that off.