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.

Adding to my list of ‘bent things Labour has done’…

The security pass is definitely more of a concern but I think it’s a can of worms the Conservatives will regret opening. Somewhere right now there are journalists searching through records to see exactly who was given access to number 10 in the last decade.

I would be interested to know whether there is a clothing allowance for PM and partner? Surely they can't expect to have to pay for all of the occasion wear they need for all of the events they have to go to? I assumed all of those Me+Em outfits that were on show after the election were on loan to promote an English brand?

Yes without the donation/gift/freebies, there will be no security pass/any other benefit/reward for the donor. So the former opens the door to the latter. This makes it a transaction via a loophole.

I disagree, I thought the clothes were completely appropriate (so did the fashion press) and Me+Em is a highly respected label. Even if you were right, remember the Dolly Parton quote “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap”!

Yawn..
I'd rather get worked up over Covid loans...

Tip of the iceberg sums it up nicely.

No, I think most of us think that politicians shouldn't accept bribes. I don't want to be represented at national or international level by anyone who takes bribes, whether they're Con or Lab or anything else. They're all the same - all in it for what they can personally get. It's fucking depressing and I feel old and jaded for thinking that - but nothing I've ever seen in politics persuades me to think differently.

YANBU. Those “with the broadest shoulders” should buy their own fucking clothes!l
Kier Starmer is going to deliver a god awful budget in a few weeks and he’s going to do it wearing glasses and clothes that someone else paid for? If he cannot fathom how utterly hypocritical that is, he has no business trying to run the country.
All of them are a shower of self absorbed, self serving twats. I despair!!!

Agree, let's wait and see....

No doubt the journos at the Guardian and Mirror are doing that as we speak.

But it’s not the point. This government and this government’s supporters tell us how much better they are than the last lot. They plainly aren’t though.

If you’re in power you get the scrutiny. If you hold yourself out as ethical, caring and hot on rules and probity you get even more scrutiny.

Why don't you wait till the Budget? At the moment there is a lot of speculation and no facts. Fulminate all you like if they do take away the single person reduction.

Idk The Guardian seem equally peed off with Starmer and co which is somewhat refreshing

Generally, yes. But there’s a whole big industry of accountants, tax planners, solicitors, estate agents and god knows who else - not least tax payers themselves - who need to anticipate changes as best they can.

One way of doing that is to read commentary in the media from political reporters and financial journalists.

There’s nothing wrong in assessing the government’s options and making the best judgements possible about likely change.

Very Animal Farm!

I would agree with you IF we had a media culture which didn't vilify public figures (mostly but not exclusively women) who fail to be impeccably turned out in public. If Lady Starmer didn't have that money spent on clothes and personal stylist assistance you know there would be horrible hateful photos and commentary in certain types of newspapers and websites pouring scorn on her fashion faux pas. If a donor wants to fund goods and services to help avoid such negative publicity that's legitimate - the issue of whether such a donation is properly accounted for and proper rules to avoid bribery are followed is a separate matter but it's not a problem for costs incurred purely due to their public position being met from sources other than their personal income.

I used to be a tax accountant, a long time ago. I'm sure people much higher up the hierarchy than I was (I was at the bottom) were trying to anticipate what might happen, but the rest of us simply read up on the changes as they were published and got on with things then, and nobody seemed to come to any great harm. In those days there was total secrecy around the Budget. That seems to have changed quite a lot.

Yanbu.

I do agree that budget leaking has got a lot worse over the years - Tories as bad as any - and that’s fuelled more and more effort to dig out or invent supposed budget measures by journalists.

But we’re here.

Id rather someone was paying for wallpaper rather than knickers and glasses.

But in reality there should be tighter controls on what they can be bought off with.

The pp is right, people will be advising and making changes based on what's likely

This is exactly what socialism is about.

The rich donors pay for the poor old Prime Minister's suit and glasses and a lovely dress for the missus. Levelling up.

It's Equity. Get over it.

To resurrect an old Labour wallpaper story from the Blair years:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/irvine-demanded-costly-wallpaper-1124353.html

TBF, though, Derry Irvine seemed just pompously to demand Pugin wallpaper from the public purse, not from a donor.

Ha Orwell seems to be coming in handy these days for a few things

Your first sentence had me in stitches. It’s was so perfect and I was surprised that no one else mentioned it.