I am a Labour voter, a Labour supporter and I do not regret my vote.

[CurlewKate]

However, I think that Starmer has been incredibly stupid and/or very badly advised over this expenses issue. He has done nothing wrong, but his behaviour is not what he led us to believe he would do, and I am incredibly exasperated and disappointed.

In my opinion, he should admit that he made a massive misjudgement, and agree to take no more freebies from now on.

Apart from anything else anything which allows people to say "They are all as bad as each other" (they aren't) is a distraction from the real issues the country faces. He should be laser focussed on repairing the damage caused by 14 years of Tory misrule. Not scrambling around dealing with peripheral stuff.
Starmer-say sorry. Don't do it again. And get back to work.

For the gifts, there’re also the questions of when the gifts were declared, how the gifts were declared (vague and misleading descriptions), whether valuations were at credible market rates, whether reasons given for the gifts are honest (like GCSE revision 🙄) and whether there are undeclared gifts and benefits (since there appears to have been use of property that hasn’t been declared and was on any assessment used very misleadingly).

But none of this seems to me to be terminal to the government’s reputation, especially if they stop the freeloading and it fades away.

What seems rather more serious is the possibility of crony civil service appointments. There’s an investigation into that for which we’ll have to wait for results.

The difficulty for Labour - and it has been said a lot on these threads so it can hardly be misunderstood - is the appalling hypocrisy. Very strong attacks on the Tories’ use of private jets, and then Labour SoSs jump straight on them! Fierce opposition to cutting (not removing totally) the WFA just months ago and then Labour do exactly that as soon as they can!

That will stick and can only be made worse if the CSC report is critical.

People loathe hypocrites, for good reason: hypocrites are generally liars on a bigger scale. It’s all the more loathsome when a party gains power at least partly on the basis of their supposed superior ethical instincts and then turn out to be grubby. I suspect Labour will find it increasingly hard to persuade anyone of the truth of anything from now on.

If the economy stutters or worsens I do think Labour will be in some considerable trouble. They’ve squandered goodwill. I expect there’ll be a second term, but they could suffer huge losses at the next GE.

Not sure I understand. I haven't accepted any donations from Lord Alli as far as I know.

Are you with Labour? If so check your wardrobe if not you’re good

I suppose it won't be true supporters like you that will matter so much. It will be the people who are questioning their vote at the next election and who understand that nothing in life is for free. And that people who give expensive gifts will want something in return for their largesse. Just reality. And Labour haven't been seen to be clean. They may have acted within the rules (although they haven't! ) but their greed still gives the impression of corruption. They need to both have integrity and be seen to have integrity and in that they have failed. Own goal unfortunately. What a shame.

No horrible green trousers suits? Check
Crap £3 specs from the supermarket? Check

Hurray! I am not a cabinet member on the scrounge!

The ferocity of the search for dirt on Starmer from the minute the election was announced would surely have turned up something if there was anything to uncover.

I do wonder what the super injunction is for. I'm amazed that it hasn't been published bearing in mind it's supposed to be an "open secret" in Westminster. Whatever it is.

I don't think our PM should have a super injunction in place personally. I don't think he should have done anything so bad that he needs to hide it.

@Nordione1 A super injunction stops any reporting. Including the existence of the super injunction! So thats why it’s not reported.

I know. But it won't apply world wide and I'm amazed Twitter hasn't uncovered what it is. Only a matter of time I suppose.

If it exists.

I very strongly suspect this super injunction talk is all complete bollocks.

I very much dislike and oppose Starmer, but for god’s sake let’s keep this sensible. This is the sort of nonsense that went around about senior Tories.

I am unrepentently de-railing to say that I appreciate Rummly's ability to write in proper sentences. Also, I especially enjoyed 'the Tories' use' on the 9.40 post. No Tory's in that sentence.

Good English usage is not dead everywhere. Warms me cockles.

I am not trying to bribe anyone.

That’s very kind.

My tip is to be a Conservative. That political outlook does wonders for one’s spelling and grammar.

(The paragraph immediately above is a joke.)

@upinaballoon -I second that! All I need now is some Oxford commas and I can die happy.

Why would Rosie Duffield be flying off to the USA and Taiwan? Have you mixed her up with Liz Truss?

I don't think Rosie Duffield has complained about general campaign funding and why would she be trawling through Starmer's register of interests? There's no doubt that many Labour supporters (and MPs) have been taken by surprise at the scale of personal gifts and hospitality accepted by Starmer - plus his lack of self-awareness and embarrassment.

A Reform UK independent journalist who was a researcher for Oakeshotte claims....

He is quite good at deleting and retweeting

Is there definitely a super injunction? If there is, I'm assuming it's about a rumour of Starmer's relationship with Alli? "Awaits deletion"

The guy who tweeted it has deleted it and changed it to runour

Some people believe anything, the recent riots have thought them nothing.

I'm not suggesting Starmer is a womaniser, or that he has been unfaithful since he got married - I was replying to a poster who assumed he was incapable of any sort of dalliance.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Tom Baldwin's biography - despite the obvious pro-Labour/pro-Starmer spin. I borrowed the book for free - even better!

What surprised me the most was the amount of effort Starmer and his associates put into him becoming Labour leader. Four or five years of planning, preparation, networking, mentoring, coaching... a real eye-opener. Starmer has

an abundance of personal ambition.

CurlewKate
in his 60s!!!

You make him sound so old!!

You seem to be warming to him Clav

BIossomtoes
Why was she in NYC anyway. On holiday
What did he want in return. Why would he want anything, people do nice things for friends, not every relationship is transactional.

And yet, Angela Rayner wrote to Kathryn Stone demanding an investigation into the free holiday Zac Goldsmith gave to the Boris and Carrie.

That might be because Boris didn't declare it at the time and gave ZG a peerage and allowed him to keep his job?

The Villa is also part of an off shore scheme to presumably hide/limit tax, no other reason is there?

That's awkward then - the Sun broke cover on the Rayner/Tarry relationship in October 2020;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12898761/angela-rayner-close-friendship-married-mp/

Johnson did declare the holiday but not the notional cost of the villa - he was cleared of rule breaking after an investigation.

iwishihadknownmore
The Villa is also part of an off shore scheme to presumably hide/limit tax, no other reason is there?

According to Labour's Pat McFadden donations from offshore funds can be perfectly legal and within the rules.