The Irony.. PM's donation was for ‘son to study for GCSEs’

[JustSpeechless]

PM suggests £20,000 donation was for ‘son to study for GCSEs’ | The Independent

Sorry if there are other threads, but I did search and nothing came up.

“My boy, 16, was in the middle of his GCSEs. I made him a promise, a promise that he would be able to get to his school, do his exams, without being disturbed,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But if you’re a 16-year-old trying to do your GCSEs and it’s your one chance in life – I promised him we would move somewhere, get out of the house and go somewhere where he could be peacefully studying.

So its OK for the PM to be worried about his child's "one chance" GCSE year being disturbed ...but he's not so worried about other people's children feeling stressed during their GCSEs by introducing the private school VAT during an academic school year.

I don't have a child in private school doing their GCSEs. And I know that there are lots of people who support the VAT and those who don't.

But I think there is a midline where lots of people on both sides of the fence agree making this change during an academic year is not fair on the kids in key exam years...and I am one of them because not all parents have a Lord Alli to step in to ensure their child's "one chance" GCSE year is not being disturbed.

For Voting:

Unreasonable - I am with Keir and I am not really bothered with other people's children's "one chance" school year being interrupted.

Not Unreasonable - I agree Labour should not interrupt the academic school year and introduce the VAT in September 2025.

And another £10k

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/04/boris-johnson-accepts-another-10000-in-accommodation-from-tory-donor

And yet more - Lord Bamsford really loves throwing money at Johnson.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/boris-johnson-now-living-20m-8016441

There are costs attached to certain roles that should be treated as official expenses, with an allowance attached. Cabinet ministers and their partners need to be smartly turned out for certain occasions such as state visits, summits, memorials, receptions etc.. It is perfectly reasonable for female PM or wife of PM to receive an official dress allowance to equip them for occasions when they are representing the Govt or country- same goes for senior Military and Diplomatic figures and their spouses. Military commanders receive allowances for entertainment as they are expected to provide hospitality- I'm sure the same principle applies to senior politicians.

What we shouldn't be seeing is private gifts and donations to cover the costs of national office.

I think the "Starmer didn’t win, the Tories lost" comes from the polling figures that show that in many constituencies Labour won the seat this time polling less votes than they lost to the Tories with in the previous election. People didn't rush out in their droves to vote Labour and drive their polling numbers up from last time, rather folk who would have voted Tory simply didn't vote at all.

'Twas ever thus.

No, no, no, no! I absolutely don’t want taxpayers footing the bill for frocks.

I think its fair enough. It's got to be shit being the son of a potential prime minister with cameras following the family's move. Any celebrity or public figure would do the same if they could.
The VAT thing is a separate issue

The parents you are talking about do have a decent level of disposable income, then, because they can afford to pay almost £2k a month in school fees. I'm sure they do make sacrifices elsewhere, as in they don't have fancy holidays or really flash cars or houses, but they have this £2k for school fees on top of mortgage/rent, food, electricity, clothing, commuting costs and so on.

As PP have said that is a lot more disposable income than most people in this country.

I would be pretty surprised if a majority of those parents, with that financial profile, couldn't get a loan for £4,600 (the VAT on one year's school fees) and manage to pay it off over a year or two. For the year our theoretical child is in Y12, those parents would have expected to pay £23,000 out of their income for school fees until Labour were elected and announced the details of VAT on school fees; so it would be unusual if they couldn't pay £5,000 instead.

Ah yes I'm sure you did not post a word against the last gov as a 'loyal Brit'

What a load of tosh. Just because your party is now in power you can't expect everyone to stop talking about them.

And if you rejoiced in the media / posters / SM taking down the last lot so they were out you can't complain now you're in the firing line.

Which is irrelevant. If it's not safe for a PM to be in the stands, why was Sunak there?

It isn’t irrelevant. It’s wellknown that Starmer is at the Emirates for every home game. Sunak very rarely and sporadically attended a Southampton match and it wouldn’t be public knowledge that he was going to be there.

Ultimately the Johnson's paid for the flat decorations and furnishings themselves and refunded the donors (and your link shows an estimated bill, not what they decided to purchase). Johnson's decision to refund the donors was precipitated by Angela Rayner complaining to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards asking for an investigation. Rayner also complained to the Commissioner regarding Johnson's holidays in Marbella and Mustique - therefore she should expect scrutiny of her own freebie holidays.

@Blossomtoes - exactly. And he's saving tax payer money.

Yeah, that’s one area that I think it’s perfectly fine to accept donations.

Or they could pay for it themselves or hire dresses, others have and it was fine

Plus more sustainable

I was replying to the other poster who thinks that most private school parents were so wealthy they could not only accumulate £23k in a year but they could also accumulate future years in fees in advance.

I’m not normalising anything at all. But yes private school fees are beyond the means of most. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

Absolutely. And that’s exactly what should be happening. And I expect will from here on in.

^Sir Keir spoke to Sir Laurie on his first day in Downing Street “to have a discussion with him about standards and the enforcement of standards”.
The prime minister said the importance of this had been impressed upon his ministers too.^

“I was really clear with the cabinet that standards apply. I made it clear the ministerial code, they will be receiving a copy of it, and it will have the Nolan Principles inside and alongside it.”

The so-called Nolan Principles were first set out almost 30 years ago and aim to set a moral template against which those in high office should judge their actions.

The Seven Principles of Public Life as they are also known, are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

“That is the standards I expect of them. As I’ve said throughout, people falling short of the required standards will face consequences, as you would expect,” the prime minister said.

Missing out on a few Arsenal football games wouldn't come under the definition of 'selflessness' then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng8l9klrvo

its fair enough but parents should have paid.

That isn't what I said, though, as you know.

oh but do as I say not as I do

but its should have happened from the get go, NOT "oh we won't do it any more now we have been caught out"

From your links -
Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner added: “Despite raking in hundreds of thousands since being forced out of Downing Street, Boris Johnson is sponging off billionaire Tory donors...

Keir Starmer's income was over £400,000 last year.

I do not. KS is a rich man and his wife comes from a wealthy family.

I completely agree. I’ll never defend it, it was naive and stupid.

1, I have zero tolerance for any politician, Labour happen to be in government.
2, No one is neutral.
3, If you're so bored you need to AS me you'll find out things like I was a Labour member, my last vote was for the Greens in 2015 but I've spoilt all my ballots since then and I've always had plenty to say about the Tories. Not that any of that matters in relation to my comments on this corrupt shower.
and 4) I find Jenrick repulsive, he turns my stomach in the same way as the likes of Ashworth did. Whichever clown the Tories pick as leader, however, is of absolutely no interest to me until the first scandal hits and/or they win a election.

Is that acceptable to you or would you like me to explain myself further? 🤨