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.

"Asshats" is an interesting turn of phrase! Are you American? Perhaps that is why you can't spell Rayner's name correctly?

@PandoraSox nope. Fully British 😊 And the spelling of her name doesn’t change the fact that she and the rest of them are raging hypocrites does it?

I don’t think it is a lack of political house, or rather, that’s a side effect. It’s arrogance and entitlement; they’ve convinced themselves that they are beyond reproach after 14 years in opposition to a government that gave them so much ammunition.

And they’re sitting there now, wondering what all the fuss is about. How dare these people question us. We are right. You can hear it in Lammy’s attempted defence of the position Starmer finds himself in. He even had the cheek to say, “but the position doesn’t come with a a clothing allowance” 😂😂.

Er, no, multi millionaires are expected to buy their own clothes…like every other prime minister and spouse I can remember. Even the grifters like the Bliars and Johnson’s bought their own clothes!

Lammy’s “defence” was utterly ridiculous. I don’t think it’s arrogance or entitlement, I think it’s a government without experienced advisors or one that doesn’t listen to the. I’m hoping to hear what Alistair Campbell’s view of this is because I’m 100% sure this wouldn’t have happened on his watch. It’s a rookie error from a government that really should know better. It should employ knowledgeable and experienced comms advisors and bloody well listen to them.

Alistair Campbell being lauded as the moral arbitrator is a new one on me 🤪

Of course this is not a non story, the virtue signalling smarm of the Labour Party for the past five years about the Tories was always naive and unforgiving. Now I hope their fall from ‘virtue’ is a hard one. Anyone who is an unforgiving virtue signaller deserves their fall when their inevitable hypocrisy is revealed.

Dismiss this as non at your peril.

MPs should serve all their constitutes, but most of them kowtowed the party line recently rather than support their constitutes.

Starmer receives "gifts" from a donor. In whose interest does he work? When you look at what he has actually done recently it's easy to see in whose interest he operates..and it is not the majority.

You cannot serve two masters.

I’m curious as to how it came about. How did the conversation go?
Lord Alli, “ Hey Vic, no offence but your look could do with freshening up. Let me buy you some strides. I’ll get Keir some specs while I’m at it so he can see you better.”
Or did someone at the Labour Party decide that part of a donation made to the party should be used for “branding” and allocate the money to a “look” for Lady S. Bad call.
She’s perfectly capable of dressing herself.

To me accepting a knighthood is much worse than accepting a season's worth of questionable clothes. How can he pretend to be a socialist while expecting people to call him 'sir'.

Does he genuinely think some people are more equal than others?

I don't understand how the later conversation went about how much they needed to declare.

How on earth did they not consider the donation to her declarable in the first place?

I do have some sympathy with the fact that she probably needed some help choosing clothes. And if donations for this are legal then they can choose whether to accept or not, and if they are declared then they face the inevitable questions that we are asking now.

I find it quite odd such donations are allowed as in many (most?) professions they would definitely not be.

But I agree with a pp that they don't have to cost that much because renting is an option.

The thing that riles me is they chose, in the first place, not to declare them. I find it hard to believe it was an oversight as they declared the donations for his clothes.

I think you misunderstand. Knighthoods are a courtesy handed to all senior civil servants who have headed up government departments. They’re completely meaningless and I don’t imagine anyone calls him anything but Keir. The clothing donation is way worse.

@BIossomtoes I understand perfectly. No one needs to accept a knighthood just because it's always offered. Completely bizarre that you think it's acceptable to say that we're all in this together but call yourself sir. And while I agree that his friends if he has any will only call him by his first name, every time he is referred to in the media etc. it is with his title.

Delusions of grandeur, and I really hope that he and his wife don't refer to her as 'lady Vic'.

She’s Lady Starmer and has every right to be called that. I don’t think he’s ever said “we’re all in this together”, that was Lord Cameron’s line.

I agree - they're all the same. They'll say whatever they think sounds stood until the opportunity arises for them to walk the talk, then they show that they're just as status/money/power-hungry as the next politician.

Everyone except those who know him personally (if they choose to) would call him 'Sir Keir' and I imagine he likes that position too just as much as any of the "betters".

I really can’t see that a customary knighthood for a DPP - which as far as I know Starmer uses only when he can’t avoid doing so - is anything to beat him with.

And I read that Labour staffers jokingly and affectionately call Mrs S ‘Lady Vic’.

There is a very great deal wrong with this untrustworthy government. I fully expect that a lot of the government’s political statements, promises and posturing will be found to be false and cynical. (My frontrunner for stupid and misleading promises is that Labour will ‘smash the gangs’ and thereby reduce boat landings - obviously not possible and frankly a barefaced falsehood.)

But I do think objection should be properly based. Otherwise opponents of this wretched government will be as bad and petty as Labour was in opposition, pointlessly seizing on every little thing.

Well not surprising people are coming to defend this sleaze. Hypocrites are like this. The only standards some on the left have is double standards,

This is the sort of stuff that happens when you go crazy at someone for spending a few minutes in a room eating a slice of cake.

I actually have some sympathy for politicians. It must be pretty hard to ensure your entire life is lived in a completely "clean" way that doesn't expose you to any sorts of corruption allegations.

But if you start holding other people to very high standards and spending all your energy and efforts focusing on that, don't be surprised when what goes around comes around.

I think you’ll find quite a few of us on the left are extremely pissed off about it and feel very let down. I know I do. It’s a completely unnecessary own goal. I’m furious.

Have you not noticed the number of MN regulars who are left leaning, me included, who have most definitely not defended this?

I‘m not a Labour voter, but I am surprised at how quickly they’ve already been dragged into a scandal, I had misguidedly hoped they might be a little more trustworthy.

I’m perhaps even more surprised at the ‘non-story’ comments. How can folk be sweeping this under the carpet, why aren’t we holding our politicians to a higher standard? Why aren’t we demanding better?

I work in the private sector and if a supplier or 3rd party bought me expensive gifts I’d decline (I’d have to decline due to policy but would have declined on moral ground before then) If I received these gifts, gave that person special access to my work and workplace, and then ‘forgot’ to declare the gifts and access in time, I’d be sacked for gross misconduct.

I have no problem in holding Labour to higher standards. I want a government that has higher standards than the last lot.

This is the sort of stuff that happens when you go crazy at someone for spending a few minutes in a room eating a slice of cake.

Exactly or drinking a coke at a meeting

If you whip up the public into a frenzy over that to get into power don't be surprised when your spouse's dress or your glasses get the same treatment

@@ Blossomtoes of course she is entitled to use it because her husband accepted the honour. My point is that it doesn't sit squarely with having socialist principles, and even having accepted it she does not have to use the title. I don't have much time for Emily Thornberry, but admire her for not using the title that she acquired via her husband.

Many many people refuse honours every year, you can Google a list. Most are more admirable than our P.M

This is untrue. My local MP hasn’t put a foot wrong, nor have many others. Just because KS and BJ both took the mick in this regard doesn’t mean all politicians should be smeared. It is firmly KS and his wife who have shown a lack of integrity here, the rest is whataboutery.

Your local MP and many others are probably not scrutinised anywhere near as highly as Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer.

Plus the complexities of being PM means that there are more opportunities for people to make mistakes.

Politicians are all hypocritical, money-grabbing bastards, the lot of them.