Lammy

Mollygo

nightowl

The gifts for his wife were declared on Tuesday this week. The gifts were made before and after he came into office in July. They should have been registered within 28 days of receipt. He may or may not be investigated. Either way I have to agree, not a good look.

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

Bet you wouldn't be offering that excuse if it had been Rishi.
Excuses excuses , the man appears to have done wrong, and will possibly be investigated.

I couldn't care less if the Starmer family en masse buy their clothes at Dior, so long as THEY pay for them.

This made me chuckle from The Telegraph this morning.

FGT2 🤣🤣🤣

Oreo

Casdon

This thread is about the OP’s take on David Lammy defending Starmer Oreo. That’s not what people are talking about I know, but look at the title and the original post. The post is disingenuous, aimed at getting people to have a go at somebody whose only crime was to defend his boss. I stand by what I said.

And I stand by what I said too.
Lammy had the uncomfortable job of defending the indefensible.Threads wander, but the subject matter is the same really, a donor giving designer clothes to a millionaire PM and wife. I don’t give any PM or Chancellor leeway to settle in and learn the ropes, these are politicians who have been in Opposition and know the ropes inside out.
I don’t expect KS to sort out the NHS or the migrant boats crisis in a heartbeat but I do expect him to act with honour and not accept highly expensive gifts from donors , especially at a time when the more vulnerable in society are being told it’s hard cheese for them but soft delicious cheeses for themselves.

It just happened to be Lammy's turn in the barrel. He shouldn't have to defend his PM over questionable personal conduct.

I agree with your post Oreo.
Starmer has declared these gifts now but do we know if he would have done had he not been pushed into it?
We expect a PM to have a finger on the pulse. It's not as if it was just a new pair of socks from M&S.

I think the acceptance of these gifts by the Starmers shows a total lack of awareness.

After 14 years in opposition’s one would have thought they would have picked up a few tips on reading the room regarding politicians accepting freebies

Mr Lammy was just the fall guy on the day defending what in the current financial situation is indefensible

Indeed GrannyGravy especially as he was never backward in coming forward when a Tory MP or PM was accepting freebies. 'People in glass houses' springs to mind.

I agree Jaberwok it's not the brand or the cost that's the issue, it's whose footing the bill.

Times have changed rapidly - the list of gifts to Johnson is astounding - and Starmer did misread public opinion greatly. From my reading it looks like he did declare what he thought was necessary in timely fashion, but the issue of gifts to his wife was not something he was initially advised he should declare.

Labour List on it:
labourlist.org/2024/09/lord-waheed-alli-keir-victoria-starmer-donations/

Not about the clothes, but just watching David Lammy at Kew talking about climate change. Big issues here, & no obvfuscation on offer from him. I really don't think Labour & Conservative are similar at all other than they're all politicians, which is enough for some people to lump them all together seemingly. Labour have looked at the big picture here & seems as though they will try to get it centre stage & global - hope they have their hard hats ready but bully to them for stepping up.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Lammys defence on tv yesterday was that politicians in other countries got a clothing allowance. Well, pensioners in other countries get more than UK pensioners do - so when can we expect an increase?

I really would not believe anything this man says. Mastermind he is not.
As for other countries, well he mentioned America, there is an allowance for the President $50.000 which equates to £38.000, which can be used for clothing. Nothing for the First Lady. BBC. So as both parties are very well renummerated, and both have huge personal fortunes, the provision of clothing should not even come into it, either from public purse or donors. Any clothing loaned should not come with favours. After all they will still own themwhen they are long disappeared from political life.

Wyllow3

I'd be surprised if Clacton has seen much of Farage as he lines his pockets substantially elsewhere including more than a bob or two on GB news. If all our MP's had regular TV/media paid slots we'd consider it massively completely out of order - just imagine.

I'm for the "second jobs" only when it is to keep up professional minimum obligations

I rather thought it might be the DM, Grantanow.

In terms of what Lammy is doing, he's pretty busy with Foreign Affairs: this thread is based on the media shenanigans around one part of one interview that GN has taken up.

Lammy did rather well from LBC, that bastion of unbiased journalism 😂, whilst he was a serving MP, and Shadow Foreign Secretary. Did you complain about that. As far as I can see there is only whining about right leaning MPs having second jobs. Another two tier system going well on GN.

I'm genuinely one tier about MP second jobs. As stated above, for keeping up professional qualifications only. Will willingly complain whatever party.

Ofcom investigated Lammy's show just as it investigated GB news

Lammy
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68761130

GB news
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68596973

I don't think serving politicians should be news hosts.

This is my personal view not party political.

I do not think that MPs should have second jobs at presenters whether TV or radio.

I cannot see how they could preserve without putting a political slant on the interview or news piece.

present not preserve 🤦‍♀️

GrannyGravy13

I do not think that MPs should have second jobs at presenters whether TV or radio.

I cannot see how they could preserve without putting a political slant on the interview or news piece.

Friends in the right places, a world many of us can not comprehend.

Smileless2012

Indeed GrannyGravy especially as he was never backward in coming forward when a Tory MP or PM was accepting freebies. 'People in glass houses' springs to mind.

I agree Jaberwok it's not the brand or the cost that's the issue, it's whose footing the bill.

And what access that gives these donors to the highest echelons of government.

In the great scheme of things, Starmer and his wife’s clothes aren’t that important, although they can afford to pay for their own.

But, as a Labour voter, I’m disappointed that this lot seem very similar to the lot that went before.🤷‍♀️

but the issue of gifts to his wife was not something he was initially advised he should declare.

So he thought it was all right for his wife to wear clothes provided by another man immersed in political donations, and not declare it?

The alternative is no donations to any political parties or figures, and no second jobs for any MPs unless specifically to keep up professional qualifications. Wouldn’t such a system favour the wealthy amongst them? Ultimately it would presumably cost the electorate more too, as we would have to fund election campaigns? It sounds utopian.

Why would we as in the general public, have to fund election campaigns?
How would that be enforced.
We already pay towards politicians salaries through NI and taxation, directly or indirectly.
Would the treasury in addition build up an election expenses fund to be shared between the parties, together with an audit of how the money is spent and an assessment of how effective/honest the campaign is?

Casdon

The alternative is no donations to any political parties or figures, and no second jobs for any MPs unless specifically to keep up professional qualifications. Wouldn’t such a system favour the wealthy amongst them? Ultimately it would presumably cost the electorate more too, as we would have to fund election campaigns? It sounds utopian.

I think we rightly have a system of expenses for MP's (tho GN's would disagree on how much) to allow as initially intended not just the wealthy to be an MP.

It's a difficult one election expenses. I had a quick google in Germany, where its a combination of a set amount from the public purse combined with donors depending on the number of votes in the previous election. But they have PR.

I don't think would go down well here.

Perhaps the way forward for that is to limit what any individual can give, and above all, set a total limit what a party can spend
Preventing the super rich buying an election and putting parties on a level playing field* ?

That sounds like some kind of solution Wyllow3. I’m still in the keep calm and carry on group. The government had to hit the ground running. Missing out on immediately declaring frocks and specs but doing it instantly advised hasn’t led me to see Starmer as corrupt. Min /mrs Starmer’s shoes/frocks, I’d be thinking blow this - come on kids, let’s take the kitten and go home, we can see daddy occasionally at Chequers.

Wyllow3

I think we rightly have a system of expenses for MP's (tho GN's would disagree on how much) to allow as initially intended not just the wealthy to be an MP.

I agree with the reason about not just the wealthy being able to be MPs.

But is it right that all MPs can claim the same level of expenses from the public purse, no matter how rich, or poor they are?
Surely that sort of unfairness is what the government are trying to put a stop to with scrapping the WFA for all but the poorest?

Do you mean that MPs should be means tested before expenses are paid Mollygo? If that was the case, I think it would make it an unattractive proposition, given most can earn far more outside parliament than they can as an MP, because the basic salary is not huge.