Am I alone in finding this so tawdry?

LizzieDrip

^This could be his "Partygate"?^

It’s not remotely comparable but, of course, the media will create the narrative that it is… and it won’t go away because the media will keep it alive!

Keir Starmer attended a barbecue in the 10 Downing Street garden after laying wreaths in Southport for the 3 little girls who were murdered……..

foxie48 I think the section 7.20 onwards is a real value to anyone trying to understand the rules. Make your own judgement.

foxie48

Visgir1

Starmer is worth around 7 million.. He can afford a few new suits and Lady S a few frocks, or she could hire like Johnson's wife.
This could be his "Partygate"?
This isn't going to go away.
Same as WFA, then he gives Sue Grey a pensioner a big payrise, and it's only been a few weeks in office.

The question of whether he can afford to buy his own suits or not is not the issue here. If he couldn't afford to buy a few suits how would it change the issue?
Sue Grey is paid a salary commensurate with the role that she is performing, it is the PM who is being underpaid.

It’s part of the issue, and you just said in your previous post that you don’t want him to look like Man at C&A which means you think he couldn’t afford a well cut/bespoke suit.
As to Sue Grey being worth being paid more than the PM, it’s a moot point.
Unless money is donated solely for political ‘office’ use then I think none of them should accept gifts for personal use and I hope there’ll now be a conversation along those lines and then something put into parliamentary law to stop gifts/ freebies completely.Since politicians themselves need to agree on this, will it ever happen?🤬

£140 is the limit I found in Section 7.20 on in the ministerial. Anything over that is not allowed- 😳

ronib

foxie48 I think the section 7.20 onwards is a real value to anyone trying to understand the rules. Make your own judgement.

My understanding is that these gifts were made prior to Starmer becoming Prime Minister so they were not subject to section 7.20 of the Ministerial code. Please correct me if I'm incorrect, I'm not an expert in these matters. They were however,, subject to being declared on the Parliamentary register of interests. I think he was unwise to accept gifts like these but he's not done anything wrong and it's very interesting to look through what MPs have declared. I think our parliamentarians are underpaid (compared to other countries) and I think ministers should get allowances for clothing as they do in most countries.
The son of a friend of mine got a post grad job with an investment bank, part of his induction was to be taken to a tailors in Savile Row for a suit fitting, taken to shops to buy suitable shirts, ties and shoes, all on expenses. All their graduate trainees got the same treatment! I therefore don't find it shocking that a long time supporter of Starmer with a great deal of money, might offer to kit him and Victoria out for his new job.

Now it’s Bridget Phillipson. Another £14k accepted.

Boris is looking like an amateur next to this lot.

Okay foxie48 exactly what is the payoff for the donors?
£140 is the maximum value for specific gifts to be retained by ministers so perhaps someone has got round to reading the rules?
Given that Starmer was leader of the opposition at the time it’s an interesting question as to whether he was included in this rule.

Over the years, politicians of all hues have accepted and declared gifts. I can kind of see that senior politicians need to look presentable, I really struggled with Rayner’s New York soirée. But this latest one (Phillipson) has definitely tipped me over the edge. Most people are going to interpret these gifts as corruption. And as they say, perception is reality.

Okay the leader of the opposition is appointed to the privy council. So I would argue that Starmer should be held accountable for a gross breach of trust and accepting goods in excess of £140 per item. Not the best start is it?

I think it's interesting that it is always assumed that donors want something back for their financial support. Lord Alli has been a long time supporter of the Labour party, perhaps he just believes in social justice? I'm not a member of the Labour party, never have been but I do have friends who are and they donate. They are quite wealthy and I suspect that what they donate, they won't miss but they do it because they believe the LP is better for the country. I donate to several charities because I support the work they do, is supporting a political party any different?

Boris is looking like an amateur next to this lot

What Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson did is in a completely different league. He destroyed hope and decency.

Perhaps Trump and Nigel will come to the recue.

Well eleven weeks in by Labour and there’s not much ‘decency’ about. Grubbiness, yes.

Eleven weeks is no time to make a fair judgement.
Much easier to judge 14 years.

So I guess you heard the row over the pass given to a Lord Alli for free access to Downing Street? foxie48
Also let’s not forget Starmer should be well versed in the law as he was a career lawyer for a long time. He of all people should know the legal position of accepting substantial gifts. We would have some excuses …..

You can only judge what you have seen happen.
So you can judge Conservatives on the last 14 years.
You can judge Labour on 11 weeks.

Saying one is wrong does not mean you think the other is right.
Doing or accepting things you condemned in a different government is wrong. Excusing it on the grounds that it’s always been done is equally wrong, especially if you have previously condemned it.

I have never imagined that all politicians are squeaky clean. But compared with the dishonesty and total absence of integrity that has characterised British political life for over a decade, this is all mere trivia and I can take it in my stride. If this is the worst the media can dig up, then I count us all very lucky.

ronib

So I guess you heard the row over the pass given to a Lord Alli for free access to Downing Street? foxie48
Also let’s not forget Starmer should be well versed in the law as he was a career lawyer for a long time. He of all people should know the legal position of accepting substantial gifts. We would have some excuses …..

I've only read what has been in the media, a temporary pass that was returned weeks ago, I know nothing more than that. With regard to Starmer accepting gifts, I assume there was nothing illegal about it as long as he declared it. With regard to "ministerial gifts" they only apply to Ministers and Starmer was not a "minister" when the gifts were made, the rules are quite clear. I just think there are much more important things to consider but that's just my opinion. I'll be interested to hear what happens at the conference and later what is announced in the budget, I'll make my judgements on that basis.

Compared to the Tories, many of whom accepted illegal gifts, fiddled their expenses and partied whilst people were dying, this is very small fry. It is also all perfectly permissible. Of course, the press will spin it for all it's worth and make it sound underhand or even corrupt. People have selective amnesia.

However, I would say that it was very foolish of Labour to accept gifts as they surely knew the media would have a field day, especially as a new government.

Personally, I think that corporate gifts should be off the cards for all politicians no matter what persuasion. No ifs, no buts.

In the words of Lynsey DePaul
It's a storm in a teacup
Brewing up double all those tiny little troubles
A storm in a teacup
It really doesn't matter
If it pitter-pitter-patters all the day

Meanwhile, the actual business of government goes on, and the government will learn from this, which is a good thing.

Integrity, honesty, decency, they all matter, especially from ones own 'side'.

Galaxy

Integrity, honesty, decency, they all matter, especially from ones own 'side'.

Of course they do Galaxy, I don’t think anybody has disputed that. There’s not a person alive who isn’t fallible. When their weaknesses are exposed it is painful, when our own are, even more so.

The Education Secretary taking mone y
For a fortieth birthday party because she saw it as a political opportunity Why don't they do some good with all these donations after all MPs earn enough already and they Labour sneered at conservative party so much over a party But labour can get away with it they got away with what looked like a party in lockdown because it was seen as a work event

Whilst I agree that the Labour leader and some Cabinet colleagues have made fools of themselves by accepting gifts and donations that - arguably - help them do their work, surely the whole problem lies with the rules, not the individuals who have been named and shamed.

Does anyone know if the gifts and donations that MPs and Ministers receive are taxed as benefits-in-kind?

Someone up-thread mentioned another employer who pays for their new employees to wear smart suits to work and there are more employers out (eg banks) there who just give generous bonuses on top of salaries to their staff.

I thought all the over-generous rules had been abolished in the wake of the expenses scandal but I was obviously very naive to have believed that.

It has been excruciating to hear Ministers insisting that the claims are in order simply because they have been declared.

IMHO it's about time that the system of donations and gifts to MPs and the practice of lobbying were done away with. These things just give MPs etc a sense of entitlement and to the general public make MPs etc greedy, grasping and corrupt.

The expenses scandal had nothing to do with gifts and donations. It was about claiming allowable expenses for second homes.

Let’s face it, they are not gifts. Someone will be expecting something in return, they are bribes