Lammy

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-lord-alli-wife-lady-victoria-clothes-b2613122.html
Starmer himself came forward last Tuesday to request the donation for his wife’s clothing should be added to his own declaration, which had been made on time. The story has been picked up after he had already corrected the record voluntarily. He made an error, but it was a minor one.

petra

eggplant
There are thousands of good people out there but they’re just not in the public eye.
I work 3 days a week for a local charity. I don’t do this for ultruistic reasons, I do it because I enjoy it and the other volunteers are my friends.
But today I will be taking a lot of donations to a women’s refuge. The women who work here truly are decent good people and nobody knows their names.

Hundreds of thousands of good people, quietly going about their business and trying to do the decent thing.

Absolutely.

Agreed, petra 👏👏👏

One of those women you mention came to give us a talk once and the tales she told were hair raising. They are very brave too.

Another Question are these "gifts" subjected to Tax as a job perk?

I’m finding the focus on trying to find anything to smear or undermine the new government and particularly the prime minister tedious.
There’s a debate to be had about WFA but getting outraged about frocks and specs in an attempt to smear Starmer misses the point about important political economic and social issues.

It’s like donkey gate all over again

If the PM and his wife had not accepted gifts of clothing, alterations on said clothing and spectacles then they would not be in the position of looking grasping and greedy

The PM is a millionaire, he has a salary of over £150,000 plus expenses, his wife is reported to earn £50,000, yet they cannot afford to clothe themselves?

This is in stark contrast to removing the WFA.

Oh the irony…

If you take your political bias out of the way and substitute the names of the beneficiaries and use titles, Prime Minister, PM’s wife etc - does it make their behaviour acceptable?

Not in my book in this instance.

I think its terrifying to contemplate what's going on behind the scenes. Putin, China, unrest in the UK, climate change, poverty and so on. Things nobody here has a clue about ( or if they do can't discuss)

KS whether you like it or not is heading a team to guide us through. And yet we are bickering about glasses and trouser suits.

Calendargirl

Did Boris get similar donations for his wardrobe?

If so, it wasn’t value for money.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

When I worked as a secretary for 20 years, I never got an allowance for my clothes getting dirty, when I had to into basements at the hospital to sort out wheelchairs, walking sticks, commodes, urinals etc. etc. ready for patients to collect after they had seen the specialist. At the end of my working life the system changed and the job was allocated to stores operatives.

Of course there are more important things to worry about - but the accepting of such gifts is demeaning to the post he holds and his own dignity. It gives the impression that he is a grasping individual out for anything he can get.

Well I just think with his usual style, Lammy has managed to make it worse for Starmer.

In this country we have a King and Queen on the world stage.

eggplant

I think its terrifying to contemplate what's going on behind the scenes. Putin, China, unrest in the UK, climate change, poverty and so on. Things nobody here has a clue about ( or if they do can't discuss)

KS whether you like it or not is heading a team to guide us through. And yet we are bickering about glasses and trouser suits.

We are all entitled to feel bitter when he is taking perks off the pensioners especially when he can afford to buy his own clothes for the job. I never got clothing allowance during our working lives and I was always expected to look smart when attending meetings etc.

eggplant

I think its terrifying to contemplate what's going on behind the scenes. Putin, China, unrest in the UK, climate change, poverty and so on. Things nobody here has a clue about ( or if they do can't discuss)

KS whether you like it or not is heading a team to guide us through. And yet we are bickering about glasses and trouser suits.

£75,000 of clothing!

Some of us are capable of thinking about more than one topic at a time.

Our current PM and his front bench are on record as decrying the last Government for accepting freebies by the way, and there were multiple threads on GN agreeing that it was wrong!

GrannyGravy13

If the PM and his wife had not accepted gifts of clothing, alterations on said clothing and spectacles then they would not be in the position of looking grasping and greedy

The PM is a millionaire, he has a salary of over £150,000 plus expenses, his wife is reported to earn £50,000, yet they cannot afford to clothe themselves?

This is in stark contrast to removing the WFA.

Oh the irony…

The two things are simply not linked!

Have you forgotten so soon how austerity affected so many of us? I haven’t, have you forgotten Truss crashing the economy and so many having mortgages badly affected or May giving £££££M to the DUP?

Let’s concentrate on the things that really matter, like debates on WFA!

It would have made absolutely no difference to anything if Starmer declined or accepted “gifts” and donations.

Beckett

Mollygo
But Starmer’s been very busy and may not have had time to register the gifts.
Better late than never.

Yet if this had been a Conservative you would all be up in arms about it - double standards it seems!

My question would not be about his being late declaring it but why he felt he should accept such gifts in the first place - he is hardly counting the pennies (unlike many pensioners)

Yes of course we would all have been up in arms if it had been Conservatives.

But this is Starmer we’re talking about, and he needs to be defended.

Cossy

GrannyGravy13

If the PM and his wife had not accepted gifts of clothing, alterations on said clothing and spectacles then they would not be in the position of looking grasping and greedy

The PM is a millionaire, he has a salary of over £150,000 plus expenses, his wife is reported to earn £50,000, yet they cannot afford to clothe themselves?

This is in stark contrast to removing the WFA.

Oh the irony…

The two things are simply not linked!

Have you forgotten so soon how austerity affected so many of us? I haven’t, have you forgotten Truss crashing the economy and so many having mortgages badly affected or May giving £££££M to the DUP?

Let’s concentrate on the things that really matter, like debates on WFA!

It would have made absolutely no difference to anything if Starmer declined or accepted “gifts” and donations.

I haven’t forgotten about Truss, it was a disaster. I didn’t agree with a lot of Boris Johnson’s actions whilst PM, including the wallpaper!

Perhaps I am in the minority, I may be right leaning but I do not think everything they do is right, nor do I think everything Labour do is wrong!

Frankly I am amazed that people cannot see that accepting £75,000 of clothing from a party donor (who immediately gets a No.10 pass by the way) is not a good look for a multi millionaire PM and his wife.

The things that really matter are the integrity of the present Prime Minister, as the leader of the party that came to power through endless personal attacks on May, Boris, Truss and Sunak; every little detail magnified and repeated relentlessly.

Sturmer has attempted to take the high moral ground, and as such needs to show he is above reproach. He clearly is not.
Taking away fuel allowance from pensioners while accepting money to procure expensive clothes and accessories for him and his wife is rank hypocrisy.

It would make a difference to me! I had high hopes of this government and am disappointed so far.Yeah, true that there are important matters to discuss both here and abroad but how our political masters act is also important and I’d thought Starmer a bit different and one who wouldn’t accept loads of freebies, especially clothing for himself and his wife.Declaring something late is also very frowned upon in Parliament.
We’re all being asked to tighten our collective belts after all, so what message does this send? There was enough cronyism going on under Boris Johnson to last a lifetime so the last thing we want is more of the same behaviour.

Oreo no sign of MP’s (of any party) tightening their designer belts

I think Starmer is starting to realise that being in the position of PM isn’t as easy as he thought it would be.

Some of us are capable of thinking about more than one topic at a time

Not very kind?

I feel worried but its not about wallpaper, glasses, donkeys, trouser suits or the Royal Family.

eggplant

*Some of us are capable of thinking about more than one topic at a time*

Not very kind?

I feel worried but its not about wallpaper, glasses, donkeys, trouser suits or the Royal Family.

I didn’t intend to be unkind eggplant

Our eldest son is an Officer in the armed forces, we are used to feeling worried all the time.

There is no point worrying about things we cannot control, it’s easier said than done, something I know very well.

eggplant

*Some of us are capable of thinking about more than one topic at a time*

Not very kind?

I feel worried but its not about wallpaper, glasses, donkeys, trouser suits or the Royal Family.

I don’t think many people are interested in/want to/understand/have formed political opinions/care/grasp or whatever words you choose, to discuss the more important issues which will affect our daily lives. It’s less taxing on the brain and more fun to discuss the people than the issues, and to let personal antipathy override reason. We’re all guilty to a greater or lesser extent.

Oreo

It would make a difference to me! I had high hopes of this government and am disappointed so far.Yeah, true that there are important matters to discuss both here and abroad but how our political masters act is also important and I’d thought Starmer a bit different and one who wouldn’t accept loads of freebies, especially clothing for himself and his wife.Declaring something late is also very frowned upon in Parliament.
We’re all being asked to tighten our collective belts after all, so what message does this send? There was enough cronyism going on under Boris Johnson to last a lifetime so the last thing we want is more of the same behaviour.

I’m with Oreo on this. The Tories’ reputation for cronyism, sleaze and noses in the trough was what sickened me. I have no argument with people having money of their own but so many seemed to be out for what they could make and conveniently absent minded -remember “flipping” and duck houses?
Odd as it might seem, I thought Rishi was above that and while I don’t actually believe Starmer is fiddling any books this is a bad start.
As for worrying about Lady Vic looking like a “rag bag” - well if the rest of us can manage I’m sure she can too and of course she could .
I’m afraid Lammy just made it a whole lot worse by sounding as if the principle of an allowance for the PM’s wife who has no official status in this country after all was OK.