Robert Jenrick accepts £75k in donations from company with ‘unclear’ origins.

Yes, I mean what does this mean (quote from article)

"The Spott Fitness said: “We’re still at the growth stage of our business but we measure success based on health outcomes not just simple profit versus loss accounting. We’re excited to support leaders like Robert Jenrick who share our vision of businesses having purpose beyond just shareholder profit.”

Actually, if you look at the gifts in total that Jenrick has received from early July to the end of August the total is well above £160.000 - check it out

members.parliament.uk/member/4320/registeredinterests

(anyone can find out - just google the MP and "declaration interests")

Lizzie is quite right - where's the headlines! Where's the query what all the "private donations" are for, as well as the ones in the O/P.

I mentioned it on the ‘but does he really understand’ thread but, as it wasn’t a criticism of Starmer people didn’t seem bothered! My first thought was that, with it being combined with the election betting scandal was that even Sky News had realised that they had to report on something other than things that Keir either had or hadn’t done. Interesting to see if Beth Rigby is quite so forceful if she gets to interview Jenrick

It's hard to believe that MSM has failed to check it out before now.

Wyllow3

It's hard to believe that MSM has failed to check it out before now.

Oh, I don’t know, Wyllow. I’m not struggling to believe it any more than I struggle to expect to see thread after thread about it on here.

Definitely needs looking into, I am not in favour of shelf companies they can be used for all sorts of things.

There needs to be a discussion on monetary donations for election purposes, if they were to be stopped than we would be in a situation whereby only those who can fund themselves can stand as an MP or the tax payer has to pick up the tab.

Gifts of clothes, glasses, loans of homes (usually in holiday destinations) etc., should definitely be made stopped for MPs.

It's particularly relevant as he is in the leadership contest.

Wyllow3

It's particularly relevant as he is in the leadership contest.

Of course it’s relevant.

All donations to all MPs whether in Government or Opposition, Party Leaders or Back Benchers should be subject to upmost scrutiny.

Donations can lead to MP’s feeling beholden to the donor, not in every circumstance, but it has happened and no doubt will happen again.

GrannyGravy13

Definitely needs looking into, I am not in favour of shelf companies they can be used for all sorts of things.

There needs to be a discussion on monetary donations for election purposes, if they were to be stopped than we would be in a situation whereby only those who can fund themselves can stand as an MP or the tax payer has to pick up the tab.

Gifts of clothes, glasses, loans of homes (usually in holiday destinations) etc., should definitely be made stopped for MPs.

Agreed, but only up to a point. I don't want to see only wealthy people able to stand as MPs - that would distort the system in favour of the rich even more than it is already.

That's a much more measured response than we've heard about Starmer, though. No mention of hypocrisy at RJ's sitting back listening to KS being excoriated knowing that he's taken so much himself? Or at the colleagues who will have known?

In Jenricks register of interests, it's made clear if it's an election campaigning donation, and the figures mentioned above are not in that category. (did not include in figures quoted)

Except for a couple of specifics, It just says, "private donation". So could be for anything?

The thing is, it’s allowed within the rules. I think if there was a deep enough search, including those donations made to parties which are given to MPs that they don’t have to declare, people would realise that this is the norm in politics. I don’t agree with it, most of us don’t seem to, but we’re just going round in circles here, castigating people who are doing what they all do - what can we do about it is my question?

Not at all, I haven’t seen RJ stand up in the H of C’s frequently lambasting the Labour Party for their donations.

I am not responsible for what is in the media, nor are the majority of Conservatives, they are in opposition, the microscope is well and truly on the Government, and rightly so.

I am sick of the lot of them to be honest, my Conservative membership finished with Liz Truss.

KS has since he became leader of the Labour Party is on record (along with AR and RR) decrying freebies and donations.

Their election campaign was full of stamping out sleaze and railing against Tory Donors.

He doesn’t appear to be aware of the hypocrisy of then taking donations and various freebies, the optics are appalling.

I have previously posted where are the Labour Party PR department?

Sky report:

“Mr Jenrick said he was not criticising Labour for accepting donations, but rather "their rank hypocrisy"

Pot and kettle comes to mind!

Casdon

The thing is, it’s allowed within the rules. I think if there was a deep enough search, including those donations made to parties which are given to MPs that they don’t have to declare, people would realise that this is the norm in politics. I don’t agree with it, most of us don’t seem to, but we’re just going round in circles here, castigating people who are doing what they all do - what can we do about it is my question?

I agree, Casdon - it's the system. KS declared all of his donations, so it's perfectly legal. He criticised the CP for taking donations in return for favours, which, as I keep saying, is very different.

If we ban all donations, the taxpayer will have to fund campaigns, unless we want to go back to the days of the local squire being the MP and the judge and in charge of parish relief. Would 'the taxpayer' want to fund Monster Raving Loonies? Or hundreds of Independents?

Following up from this:

Four kinds of "donations and areas to look at".

1. For political campaigning at elections. Its the way we currently fund elections.

2. Large handouts for contracts and contracts for close friends/favours.

3. Payment for jobs/work outside parliament - like directorships or work in the media - possible favours

4. Personal/private gifts such as the ones we have been talking about at length and apply to both Starmer and Jenrick and have previously been "custom and practice"
but no longer clearly unchallenged.

The Labour party did announce in the manifesto that (2) and (3) above would be possible targets.

It seems to me that there is a great deal of muddling in the differences between these 4 different points,

but on the matter of private donations there has been such heavy criticism in the press on the principle of it that it does now matter that there is "one rule for all" Jenrick included

What can we do?
2 choices as I see it.
Either put a complete stop to ALL donations of any kind.
Or just accept it, like other countries do, and put a stop to all the castigating and besmirching anyone and everyone.

I see the personal donations as freeing up money for other things. Suppose I have a dress factory and it costs me £10 to make a dress that retails at £500. I donate that dress to Mrs Doodle, leader of the Dog Party.

Mrs Doodle would have to shop for campaign clothes to wear on the telly anyway, so my donation saves them the £500 it could cost to buy the dress in a shop.

This frees up £500 for the Dog Party to spend on posters and clipboards at a cost to me of a tenner, which I can presumably set against tax, and I get publicity for my range of dresses.

So yes, my donation is to Mrs Doodle, but indirectly it funds the Dogs. That's how it works in a number of situations. Charity auctions, raffle prizes, goody bags at PR events, clothes to wear on the red carpet at awards ceremonies - it's not confined to politics.

So long as my dress factory isn't awarded the contract to supply uniforms to the armed forces and the police, and so long as I am not awarded a peerage as a result of my donation, there is no corruption and no case to answer. If I were to become a Baroness, however, or if that huge contract landed in my lap, it would be a very different matter.

If Mrs Doodle's opponents, the Cat party, criticised my (and her) behaviour and complained that it was cash for favours, they would be justified in doing so, if they were free of corruption themselves.

If the dress was worn on the campaign and that was the end of the matter (ie no contract, and no peerage) there is no problem, and it would be perfectly ok for the Dog party to ask questions about the Cats' acceptance of money in return for favours.

If the Cats had accepted donations in return for favours such as huge contracts and peerages and then complained about Mrs Doodle's dress they would be being dishonest and thus setting themselves up for derision when they are exposed.

Edit:
If Mrs Doodle's opponents, the Cat party, criticised my (and her) behaviour and complained that it was cash for favours, they would be justified in doing so, if they could show that this were true, and if they were free of corruption themselves.

Doddledog 🤣👏🤣👏 … and, of course, if the Cat party is supported & promoted by a nationwide dog hating organisation i.e. The Daily Cat, The Cattygraph etc. well …🤷‍♀️

Well of course a Tory MP will have this issue. According to those on the left all Tory MPs are liars and cads!

We know this.

As for Kier declaring his wardrobe additions , he didn't declare them as wardrobe additions initially.

From the Guardian ...

Starmer was given a further £16,000 worth of clothes by the Labour peer Waheed Alli, which was declared as money for his private office, the Guardian can reveal.

The donations, comprising £10,000 in October 2023 and £6,000 in February 2024, bring the total amount in gifted clothes to £32,000.

These latest gifts were not previously known about as they were described as being “for the private office of the leader of the opposition”.

TBH, relating to the Robert Jenrick donations, as compared to the Keir Starmer donations, there are two main issues that trouble me:

Firstly … the unclear origins of RJ’s donations e.g. their provenance

Secondly … the absence of media coverage of RJ’s donations in contrast to the media ‘hysteria’ around KS’s donations.

LizzieDrip

Doddledog 🤣👏🤣👏 … and, of course, if the Cat party is supported & promoted by a nationwide dog hating organisation i.e. The Daily Cat, The Cattygraph etc. well …🤷‍♀️

Very true, Lizzie. That does complicate things.

😼🐶

Rekarie

Well of course a Tory MP will have this issue. According to those on the left all Tory MPs are liars and cads!

We know this.

As for Kier declaring his wardrobe additions , he didn't declare them as wardrobe additions initially.

Well of course a Tory MP will have this issue. According to those on the left all Tory MPs are liars and cads!

Are you saying this with a straight face, or is there a huge element of sarcasm at play here?

Jenrick has received considerable private donations before the dates I outlined, and from very dodgy sources: for example

"The International Super Rich Bankrolling Robert Jenrick’s Political Ambitions Through Mysterious Companies"

bylinetimes.com/2024/05/17/the-international-super-rich-bankrolling-robert-jenricks-political-ambitions-through-mysterious-companies/

Look at the list and amounts: also that they are international companies, some pretty dodgy,

it beggars belief they didnt expect anything in return
One quote:

He has described Idan Ofer as a family friend (sound familiar?) after concerns were raised when the two met in 2018 while Jenrick, then a junior Treasury Minister, was considering a request for financial support from a mining project that would have rivalled Oder’s own firm Cleveland Potash

These are of far more concern than Starmer's sources: at any rate, they should at least see the light of day in the MSM if judgments are being constantly made.