Keir Starmer

BigJoe#1 said:
.... so how come Al-Fayed was not picked up (twice) then...? Just askin'?
Click to expand...
You’ve only made that point about 5 times now.
The first time Starmer had been in post for less than 3 months and his experienced director of complex cases decided there wasn’t enough evidence. Fairly unlikely the new boss would overrule him.
The second time, Starmer was no longer DPP.

Repeatedly making the same point is getting boring.
 
hampshireblue said:
Quote "Keir Starmer is alleged to have broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare donations of clothing for his wife from the Labour donor Waheed Alli.

The gifts to Victoria Starmer were not initially declared in the register of MPs’ interests, the Sunday Times reported.


Starmer approached the parliamentary authorities on Tuesday to make a late declaration after being given updated advice on what needed to be registered.

The donations reportedly covered the cost of a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for Lady Starmer before and after Labour’s election win in July.

MPs are required to register gifts and donations within 28 days." End of Quote

So all of this uproar is about timing. As soon as they took further advice on the matter, they complied with the rules. It all feels a bit like Currygate. The DM and DT get a sniff of something they can chuck out there as red meat to the likes of Chippy and PPT.

Much of this took place before he was PM when the shadow cabinet were not "provided for" by the public purse in completely opposite to ministers who could claim for stuff from public money.

I openly admit the optics are poor. But let's take Arsenal tickets for example. They have now openly said they prefer him not to be in his usual seat for security reasons. My understanding is, he didn't cancel his Season ticekt to save himself a few bob but contiued to pay for it.

My preference would be that MPs get paid a load more than they do now and nothing further can be claimed-what that amount should be though is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...

We could just pay them the same and they could just buy their own clothes, you know like everyone else.
 
hilts said:
We could just pay them the same and they could just buy their own clothes, you know like everyone else.
Click to expand...
I agree in a perfect world. But like it or not £88k or £128k for an MP or minister is simply not enough. The fact remains that the gifts were declared albeit late after further advice was sought and received. A bad look though.
 
hampshireblue said:
I agree in a perfect world. But like it or not £88k or £128k for an MP or minister is simply not enough. The fact remains that the gifts were declared albeit late after further advice was sought and received. A bad look though.
Click to expand...
Then why do the job? In the current climate I have no sympathy for anyone who only earns £128k. These are not people who have had to prove themselves better than the najotity to get these jobs.

Are there many other occupations where in a lot of cases there is no other competition for your job and you can be devoid of any sort of common sense, get a great pension in no time and a cushy role in the Lords?
 
hilts said:
Then why do the job? In the current climate I have no sympathy for anyone who only earns £128k. These are not people who have had to prove themselves better than the najotity to get these jobs.

Are there many other occupations where in a lot of cases there is no other competition for your job and you can be devoid of any sort of common sense, get a great pension in no time and a cushy role in the Lords?
Click to expand...
I too have no sympathy but the fact remains that it isn't enough to cover all of the costs to be an effective MP or minister.
 
hampshireblue said:
I too have no sympathy but the fact remains that it isn't enough to cover all of the costs to be an effective MP or minister.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure politicians could afford most of the gifts they have been given, if not they could just do without, I have worked in many offices over the years I havent been bought a suit or a shirt, not even a bloody tie. Strangely enough they Hever offered to buy the mrs a dress as well.
 
Think giving a senior civil service post to a party donor is a new wheeze but Rayner's luxury holiday gifts like Keir's record rewards are definitely all OK with the faithful on here. What do our pure of heart think about the appointment of banker Ian Corfield as Director of Investment at the Treasury then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
hilts said:
I'm pretty sure politicians could afford most of the gifts they have been given, if not they could just do without, I have worked in many offices over the years I havent been bought a suit or a shirt, not even a bloody tie. Strangely enough they Hever offered to buy the mrs a dress as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. If I understand the situation correctly, most of these "gifts" were before Labour came into power-ergo, the last administration had no issue with the system as it was. If rules, apart from the fact that the gifts were declared, but late, get changed, then that's a good thing.

It's good that a proper debate is taking place on here though, as far too many sling in their one-line comments and never actually come up with an alternative to what they're unhappy about-morning PPT.
 
hilts said:
I'm pretty sure politicians could afford most of the gifts they have been given, if not they could just do without, I have worked in many offices over the years I havent been bought a suit or a shirt, not even a bloody tie. Strangely enough they Hever offered to buy the mrs a dress as well.
Click to expand...

Is it a valid comparison? The clothing was for the campaign trail and probably to also be worn when meeting high net worth donors and schmoozing them. Not unusual for such people to be so vacuous to care about the fit of a suit.

Doesn't seem just a coincidence that the money came from their chief fundraiser.
 
hampshireblue said:
I agree. If I understand the situation correctly, most of these "gifts" were before Labour came into power-ergo, the last administration had no issue with the system as it was. If rules, apart from the fact that the gifts were declared, but late, get changed, then that's a good thing.

It's good that a proper debate is taking place on here though, as far too many sling in their one-line comments and never actually come up with an alternative to what they're unhappy about-morning PPT.
Click to expand...
Politicians feathering there nest is a story that goes back to when politicians become a thing. It's a story that usually gets everybody in agreement unfortunately it seems times are a changing. Everything gets spun.

The simplest solution is don't take gifts then it doesn't need to be an issue, the lack of awareness from politicians is quite bewildering really. It does make you wonder if its actually possible to be a politician and have a strong sense of morals.

Are we always unlucky with who we pick or is inevitable?
 
hampshireblue said:
I agree in a perfect world. But like it or not £88k or £128k for an MP or minister is simply not enough. The fact remains that the gifts were declared albeit late after further advice was sought and received. A bad look though.
Click to expand...
88k is more than enough. Most of them have other jobs on top of their parliamentary salaries. No politician should be claiming freebies, irrespective of whether they've been declared or not.

Let's look at it this way, does Nigel Farage warrant his MP salary? The supercilious prick has been to his constituency once since assuming the role. I would argue the majority are earning too much.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Is it a valid comparison? The clothing was for the campaign trail and probably to also be worn when meeting high net worth donors and schmoozing them. Not unusual for such people to be so vacuous to care about the fit of a suit.

Doesn't seem just a coincidence that the money came from their chief fundraiser.
Click to expand...
I'm sure his suits fitted perfectly well before and if they didn't he could have bought them.

Fundraising and politics another road fraught with danger.
 
jimharri said:
Looking from afar, it seems very naive, what he, Rayner and Reeves did. In their position, you've got to give the impression of being whiter than white. Did they really need donations for working clothes? And did they honestly think that the matter wouldn't become public knowledge? Once the media smell blood, they're like a dog with a bone.
Click to expand...
Fed up of hearing "it's within the rules" - you're supposedly "the party of change" and all for "working people" - so change the rules? This the Bliar gpvernment version 2. Happy to say whatever is needed to get themselves into power.
 
Blue and true said:
88k is more than enough. Most of them have other jobs on top of their parliamentary salaries. No politician should be claiming freebies, irrespective of whether they've been declared or not.

Let's look at it this way, does Nigel Farage warrant his MP salary? The supercilious prick has been to his constituency once since assuming the role. I would argue the majority are earning too much.
Click to expand...
The last figure I could find was 90+ Tory MPs and 3 Labour had second jobs. It's true many have other roles they can fall back on if they're voted out. So it's not "most" by a long way.

I don't disagree that the system needs changing on the back of this, and I'm sure if I looked back through the history on here, those that are moaning about Starmer declaring stuff as the rules require, were getting just as irate when Johnson and Co were getting £800 for a roll of wallpaper that they didn't declare.
 
hampshireblue said:
The last figure I could find was 90+ Tory MPs and 3 Labour had second jobs. It's true many have other roles they can fall back on if they're voted out. So it's not "most" by a long way.

I don't disagree that the system needs changing on the back of this, and I'm sure if I looked back through the history on here, those that are moaning about Starmer declaring stuff as the rules require, were getting just as irate when Johnson and Co were getting £800 for a roll of wallpaper that they didn't declare.
Click to expand...
Think you'll see plenty of us slagging them tory cunts off too
 
It's pretty bad optics for Starmer, given that he positioned himself as a leader who would clean up politics after over a decade of Tory sleaze. He's shown a fair bit of naivety in how he's handling these issues, and his approval ratings are unsurprisingly already plummeting. The right-wing press were always going to turn on him at the first opportunity, but he's giving them plenty of ammunition.
 
hampshireblue said:
The last figure I could find was 90+ Tory MPs and 3 Labour had second jobs. It's true many have other roles they can fall back on if they're voted out. So it's not "most" by a long way.

I don't disagree that the system needs changing on the back of this, and I'm sure if I looked back through the history on here, those that are moaning about Starmer declaring stuff as the rules require, were getting just as irate when Johnson and Co were getting £800 for a roll of wallpaper that they didn't declare.
Click to expand...
Let's face it, none of them are in it for the betterment of society; those that are are a needle in a haystack. Donations have been happening for so long that it's normalised within the MP bubble; many won't realise just how fucked off the public get by it. They're self-serving wankers, but I still think Starmer has some way to go before his bar is set as low as the likes of Johnson.

Our parliamentary make-up is antiquated, it isn't fit for purpose and needs a rethink; not least of which the honours system which is repugnant beyond words. But I'm gonna give it a while yet before I call for labour's collective head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top