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.

Tbf a box at Arsenal would cost his entire net PM salary. They’re phenomenally expensive. I don’t think that an invite into a friend’s box is a big deal. Accepting ££££ for clothes for yourself and your wife is dodgy af though.

The football box and the use of flats doesn’t bother me in the slightest, after all no money has changed hands. I’d rather there had been no donations for clothes, a couple with an income of £400k can afford to clothe themselves.

I've just discovered that the French President and his wife wear carefully chosen French designers, and it's considered important "advertising"....

@Blossomtoes The insane system we have at the moment leads to the perception of snouts in the trough. I said like student accommodation. I’m that you set aside mp flats in blocks of flats. They don’t have to be shared bathrooms. Honestly some people have no imagination or even know you could make a range of flats available. Lots of options are possible and my main concern is cutting down on gross overspending. Some London flats are in lively areas and of course they could be desirable. They would just belong to the state, not the individual.

Yes that would be insane.

But equally, the state shouldn't be paying for rented or bought housing for MPs, which then lay empty for much of the year.

There are plenty of good quality hotels they can use.

For Government ministers, its a different thing, they need to be in Parliament far more.

But a default MPs paid for house in central london, no.

@iwishihadknownmore "
"There are plenty of good quality hotels they can use."

I'm not sure that 8 months of a good quality hotel in central London would be any cheaper than a rented flat. And the life of an MP is so antithetical to family life anyway, I don't think we should expect them to do it from a hotel bedroom...

I really can’t see any problem with MPs, who have homes around the country, renting or receiving some costs if they buy a London property, with state funds.

I do find the idea of an MPs’ hall of residence amusing, but it’s hardly practical or sensible. It would be a bit like the Olympic village, but with older people, most of whom couldn’t swim a length or run 100m without stopping for a breather. An Ozempic village maybe?

I suspect most of them wouldn’t be hitting the work like students in halls either. The local pubs would do good trade though.

MPs only get expenses on rented property now, nobody gets their mortgage paid. I don’t have any issue with that. I’d rather that than £300+ a night for hotels that would cost a minimum of around £5k a month.

We said the same thing.

Rummyly, I think some MPs who were single used to live in the flats in the building known as Albany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_(London) so a hall of residence for MPs in a sense may be something with a history.

You might like to know the Swedish parliament does have accommodation for MPs. Are they insane? Such ignorance on here. We admire Sweden in many ways and their system of flats is not “insane”. It is done for transparency and to stop expenses roaring away with a life of their own. Other countries give a fixed sum for expenses to include office and living expenses. Most pay higher salaries too.

Interesting, thank you.

I also read somewhere that Dolphin Square, in Pimlico, had (maybe has) a significant number of MP residents because of its location.

But a favoured building or development is a bit different to a dedicated MPs’ hall of residence.

That said, I’d be all for a block to be built within striking distance of Westminster. In Mile End, say, or East Acton - somewhere on the tube that’s suitably unswanky. If they didn’t want to live there, they could pay for themselves.

Janet Daley summed up Keir Starmer well in the Telegraph today

" I can’t recall any prime minister whose personality was more unsuited to political leadership. (Possibly Edward Heath?) The blank unchanging facial expression, the lack of any perceptible sense of humour, the single repetitive cadence to his speech, and the inability to manifest warmth to a crowd"

Combined with his greed, hypocrisy and bad sixth form politics I think Labour (and the country) have a real problem in Sir Keir Starmer.

@Nordione1 it sounds more like you hope the country has a real problem with Starmer. All the things you describe are a refreshing alternative to Bozo Johnson and his antics of hamming it all up for the camera. I'm much more interested in what Starmer delivers than how photogenic and charismatic he may be. John Major was hardly Mr Charisma and he managed to last seven years.

John Major was mercilessly attacked by Labour, its sympathisers in the press and its supporters for being gray, boring, uninspiring, nasal and generally a figure of fun for his dullness. Remember the caricature of him tucking his shirt into his underpants? I think it was Alastair Campbell who pushed that one. (Mind, I’ve no doubt Major didn’t have anyone fund his shirts or Y-fronts for him.)

Major was indeed dull.

Funny how those attributes are now strengths for Starmer.

Starmer can probably get away with ‘boring’ but ‘liar’ is harder

That was the switch between a poll a year ago and now

I hope the country has decent leadership of whatever stripe. This is not what we have at the moment. Keir is soulless.

And what did you think of Johnson out of interest? Did his lack of any moral compass bother you?

I always try and avoid asking personal questions of posters really or suggest that I know what other people think. I always think it makes people look aggressive and judgemental.

Having said that, to answer your question about my views, I feel all politicians are currently not up to scratch from whatever party. As I've said before, this is not particularly a tribal issue, however much people try and make it so.

Sadly I don't think Starmer is going to be a leader with whom we have confidence judging by his performance so far. Maybe it's early days but he seems forever on the back foot in react mode. I don't have much faith in his cabinet either, they are all too lightweight and inexperienced for my liking. I was watching a feature on Sky News with Sir Malcolm Rifkind (former Foreign Sec) speaking, he was so insightful and eloquent, then I thought of our totally underwhelming current Foreign Sec who thinks a man can grow a cervix.

And that Henry VII came after Henry VII. Silly mistake obviously but just opens himself up to ridicule. Which is par for the course these days sadly.

What an odd post. Insinuating that posters who ask direct questions are aggressive and judgemental is significantly more judgemental than asking a poster a question. It's a perfectly reasonable question since you seem to be so vocal in your moral outrage at any Labour governmental misdemeanour. Have you not lived through 14 years of Tory self interest and sleaze? Oops another personal question. Naughty me!

John Major was one of the most under estimated politicians of my lifetime. He was attacked by every party for being grey and boring, including his own. He called them “the bastards”. He held three out of four of the great offices of state and did most of the heavy lifting on the N Ireland peace process.

Attlee too was considered dull and boring, yet his government constructed the welfare state, including the NHS. History seems to be much kinder to quiet PMs than their contemporary commentators.

I don’t think the form of the question is bad or wrong. I just think it’s irrelevant.

If Starmer had said before the election “Johnson was an unprincipled rogue. I am also very deeply ethically flawed, but I’m not as bad as Johnson” it might be relevant. But he didn’t say that, so it’s not.

"It sounds more like you hope the country has a real problem with Starmer."

You must do you of course. It's just a technique I've noticed sometimes used by posters supporting Starmer/Labour. Presumably a misguided attempt to persuade.