Forum menu
I just don’t know how the country is still functioning with all the failures and scandals, i’m amazed there’s not militias running the streets just now
Because people who count are good at firefighting.
I don't get the defence - it's in our interest to have a Labour government that didn't do all this stupid stuff. At the absolute best it's given the right an eternity of ammo, at the worst the country is accelerating its right-leaning trajectory.
Stupid, just plain stupid decisions that didn't need to happen.
WFA did not need to happen at all. There's no way even if you were using heterodox economics 1.4bn would touch the sides. (Not forgetting the 2 child cap farce.)
Labour could have done a much much better job coming into power - and really pushed themselves.
The Labour right are doing their level best to make sure Labour are banished.
No one wins. None of us.
His biggest grossing film is still the most predictably shit and the others just shit. We’d all be better off without them or him
Unfortunately in Cinema the biggest grossing argument does go a long way and oils a lot of cogs; especially in the face of critics.
Cameron did start as a low-budget film maker though. He definitely shaped cinema in many good ways.
The fact that he's an ego maniac - well yeah.
Marina Hyde turning on Starmer is going to confuse a few people on here. They’ll have to find someone else to tell them what to think.
Ooof.
I'm waiting for Toynbee.
She will be there until the end I reckon.
The prime minister has maintained he has always followed the rules on donations.
Yeah but greedy is never a good look for any politician, especially one who claims to be offering something different to the Tories.
Which is why Starmer has eventually caved in.
PM will no longer accept donations for clothes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyvpv1lzq6o
How will he manage? He's going to have to make some "tough decisions" the next time that he needs a new suit.
I'm still wearing the suit my soon to be ex-brother-in-law grew out off 40 years ago when I need to wear a suit. Starmer should have enough suits for a lifetime if he goes easier on the beer than my soon to be ex-brother-in-law. perhaps he can get new lenses for those oh so expensive frames if his correction changes.
How will he manage? He’s going to have to make some “tough decisions” the next time that he needs a new suit.
He'll have to cut them to his cloth.
How will he manage?
He’s got 5 years to prepare for the next campaign. Not having his wardrobe and glasses picked out and paid for him by his campaign team should be easy enough to avoid next time. God this is a boring non story. And jumped on by people here who claim not to be easily led by the media. Gullible, or what?
God this is a boring non story. And jumped on by people here who claim not to be easily led by the media. Gullible, or what?
I take a deep interest in stories circulating the media are you trying to say that you don't? I think it was about the third item on this evening's BBC News.
And if this is the non story which you claim it is then surely Keir Starmer must be the gullible one.......he has announced today that he will no longer accept donations for clothes.
I suspect that Keir Starmer doesn't see things quite as you claim to see them Kelvin and he fully recognises that this has been a terrible week for him, and that his obvious and unnecessary greed during "tough times" will have cost him public good will.
It was a Boris Johnson level blunder and I reckon Rishi Sunak should troll him by getting photographed trying glasses on at an opticians.
Two months into a 5 year term with a majority in parliament, yeah i'm sure Starmer and his cabinet are really concerned about public opinion polls or stories about legal donations that follow the long tradition of large donors donating to the winners, no matter the politics.
Again, if Starmer did something like Johnson, that was wilfully breaking rules or laws, then i'd not care too much if he was replaced by Rayner, Reeves, etc, thankfully they do seem to be ignoring all the bluster and continuing to govern, without having to be led by public opinion or trying to be everyones friend.
We’re at “beergate” all over again.
That bad? You think it's as bad as the beergate scandal? Gosh
I was thinking more wallpapergate and all the greed and extravagant expenditure that involved, hence my suggestion that Rishi Sunak should consider trolling Starmer and go shopping for glasses.
It seems rather appropriate wouldn't you say?
thankfully they do seem to be ignoring all the bluster and continuing to govern, without having to be led by public opinion
I take that you are not aware of this :
And I am amazed that it is no longer about public opinion, I thought the justification for a lot of pretty right-wing policies was because at the end of the day what apparently really matters is public opinion?
So when did that change?
I’m not sure we’ve had a PM of the people for a very long time, but as long as he’s for the people I’m happy.
I’d rather he wasn’t a hypocrite though. Jury is out for me whether it’s that or naivety (he’s a KC, so I’m struggling with the latter).
For me it's not the suits, glasses and the football box, it's the lack of judgement by a reasonably wealthy individual and the team that surrounds him.
Alongside the pensioners WFA and God alone knows what in the budget, as a Labour voter I am more than unhappy. Labour had a window of opportunity post election to bang some big old stakes in the ground and crack on.
The whole public view is that Labour robbed the pensioners and took a load of freebies, it doesn't matter what Boris and the f**wits did they have been punished. We can sweep this aside and present all the arguments but it looks s**t, sounds s**t so it is s**t
Just pay for your own stuff.
So easy and would look a hell of a lot better than freeloading. I really don't care so much about the rules on this one - it's pure optics.
Most people think politicians are over paid and have too many houses etc - it might not be accurate but that's how it's viewed. (I don't think they're paid enough for such a thankless task.)
One thing the public don't like is anything to do with politicians and hypocrisy - and that connection has been made with stuff for them and tough decisions for everyone else.
God this is a boring non story.
Yes, that's what his uncritical followers keep saying.
It clearly isn't a non story and it is absolutely feeding the "they are all the same" to a lot of people who already suspected that. Combined with the likelihood that there are not really offering anything then where do you think more people will go.
From a casual observer (i.e. the average voter) Tories didn't do anything for us for 14 years, Labour seem to be the same or even worse so I think I will give Reform a go as they want to change things and seem to be challenging stuff. If Reform vote share increases that will 100% be down to Labour giving away the opportunity they had.
Starmer needs to be whiter than white given the pretext of the previous government.
I'm still holding out hope for some progressive policies but simply scrapping obvious shite like Rwanda isn't good enough for 5 years.
Wailing about a Black Hole isn't either. USE IT TO EVERYONE'S ADVANTAGE. Use it to make the case for EU entry, use it to make the case to borrow to invest. Don't just wail about it and look like you have no plan, no agency and are just going to cut more and more.
I'm still giving this government 12 months to show some real progress. I'm not willing to write them off yet. But they are beginning to get on my tits a little bit.
I think if I am ever asked to explain the phrase “throwing stones in glass houses” I shall illustrate it with reference to Starmer’s Giftgate.
I really hoped we had turned a page on behaviour like this, but at the earliest opportunity this episode has shown us that behind all the huff and puff all politicians are made of the same stuff.
Starmer is a strange contradiction, I can see why people are hopeful with his - no thrills business like demeanor but he doesn't seem to have any depth at all at times. What the hell does this man believe in?
The twin of Erk Ten Hag :0)
https://twitter.com/MazzucatoM/status/1836901301713784852?t=8_yR2OF73hljwjD_EVGQWQ&s=19
Mazzucato becomes the first mainstream economist I know of to try and frame the debate on QT about government spending - away from the normal arguments about lack of money.
Well done! Progress.
But look how it changes the debate.
I really hoped we had turned a page on behaviour like this, but at the earliest opportunity this episode has shown us that behind all the huff and puff all politicians are made of the same stuff.
For me it’s more worrying that the leader of the Labour Party is clearly so disconnected from the average person in the country. What’s it saying when someone on £163,000/yr can’t afford to buy his own suits and glasses?
Football thing is complicated. I’d be happier if the cost of the box was recharged to the security services and funded out of public money than I am that he’s getting it as a gift. There’s no point saying “no strings attached”, because no one in their right mind would make a donation to a political figure or party and not expect something in return.
One imagines that the cost of providing a posh suit and some glasses will be more than offset by tax changes in the upcoming budget that shift the burden onto lower and middle earners by scrapping salary-sacrifice pension savings and the single-person council tax discount, while the ultra-rich see no changes.
There are some shocking figures for Labour in this recent ipsos poll in which the fieldwork was started before the Wardrobegate story had broken
Half (50%) of Britons say they are disappointed by what Labour have done in government so far – including a quarter (26%) of Labour voters
A quarter (25%) think Keir Starmer is doing a good job as Prime Minister – down from 36% in July
Britons are more likely to think that the Labour government will change Britain for the worse (36%) than the better (31%)
Approximately a week ago only a quarter of voters thought that Starmer is going a good job as PM, I wonder what that figure is now?
And I am amazed that a quarter of Labour voters are already disappointed by what the Labour government have done so far.
As I am that more people think the current Labour government will change Britain for the worse than for the better.
What makes this particularly serious imo is that Labour's huge parliamentary majority is built on the smallest share of the vote of any previous government. Only 34% percent voted Labour at the last general election and already a quarter of those people are disappointed.
Many will argue that the next general election is still 5 years away so nothing much to worry about. But 5 years of a widely unpopular Labour government whose starting point is the smallest share of the vote ever sets the scene for a catastrophic disaster at next general election.
Tony Blair lost 3 million Labour votes in his first five years as PM, if Starmer loses just half that amount over the next five years 2029 will be a catastrophe. Who's ready for a Tory-Reform government?
I think if I am ever asked to explain the phrase “throwing stones in glass houses” I shall illustrate it with reference to Starmer’s Giftgate.
I really hoped we had turned a page on behaviour like this, but at the earliest opportunity this episode has shown us that behind all the huff and puff all politicians are made of the same stuff.
Starmer is not an out and out cronyist crook like Johnson. But he's given those that want to attack him plenty of ammunition. And the one thing we were supposed to believe about Starmer is that he was going to have his house 100% in order and thus be sorted on the 'perception management' front.
The relative degrees and extent of corruption are important to people who follow politics. But nuance and degree is lost on the vast majority of folk who only take a passing interest, if any at all.
Starmer is a ****ing idiot to have dug this hole for himself.
most disappointing to me is that behind the scenes, government with a small g - the Dept advisors, junior ministers, CS, etc., are getting on with quiet competence and whether it's truth or perception - and frankly it's the same thing right now - they are being badly let down by their figureheads. Even on here the talk is of shit corrupt government, when it's a few (so far) letting the whole side down.
I still have hope that the right decisions will be allowed to be made (not necessarily the popular ones) by people that know what they're doing, and in the meantime SKS gets his head down and stops stepping in things that distract from the real work.
I wonder what sort of a ride he'll get at conference; hopefully someone with credibility and clout will tell him to get it fixed.
Christ he’s useless. At least Corbyn seemed well intentioned as he blundered from one stupid gaffe to the next. If it’s not safe for Starmer to go to football matches then he should do what most of the rest of us do, and not go to football matches. Not taking gifts from dodgy donors who’ll want favours in return is hardly genius-level either. But to do all this while likely precipitating a worse winter hospital crisis by removing support to some of the most vulnerable to chronic hypothermia? He needs some better advisers than whatever ones he’s currently enriching. At least Johnson seemed cognisant of the fact he was pulling strokes and fooling (some of) the electorate. What a clown.
He needs some better advisers than whatever ones he’s currently enriching
He cut their pay. The advisors are getting less than when they were in opposition ?
^^ spad grumpy about their pay cut is one of the possible motives for Sue Grays salary getting leaked
I think the big strategic political decisions are made by Morgan McSweeney and to an extent also David Evans.
It would appear that Rachel Reeves makes all decisions which relate to the economy, including the winter fuel allowance.
Starmer's relationship with Lord Alli will have been supervised McSweeney and Evans, Starmer won't have developed a relationship with a major Labour donor without McSweeney's involvement.
Morgan McSweeney is a absolute **** ^, ruthless power hungry creep
At least no one can claim that Starmer is a populist. I’ve never seen PM try so hard to be unpopular. Not sure he understands this politics stuff. He thinks the job of PM is to be an effective manager of the country while the people who voted for him expect him to be making their lives easer. He’s actually failing at both.
Once again for the hard of understanding, populism is nothing to do with being popular, any more than it's related to overpopulation, depopulation or popular music. The words share a common root of course but refer to rather different things.
Populism is a political ideology that pits the (innately good) population against the (evil) elites.
Yeah, i do mix them up a few times, whenever i put it down i mean popularity and more regarding opinion poll politicians.
It would appear that Rachel Reeves makes all decisions which relate to the economy, including the winter fuel allowance
Definitely. I heard Starmer doesn't know much about economics - and was put on a quick course - so he's put too much faith in Reeves who is basically dragging the heart of the Labour party to somewhere really dark with her stupidity.
Reeves will go first if this is kept up. I'm sure of it.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1837463427335286969?t=G7vATzwyXF7UbcZsxox6-g&s=19
I think the big strategic political decisions are made by Morgan McSweeney and to an extent also David Evans.
Jeezus, I need to keep more up to date with what is happening in the Labour Party, I had absolutely no idea until this evening that about a week ago David Evans had resigned as general secretary and been replaced. By a Morgan McSweeney protege obviously.
Although having said that it seems to have had little media coverage.
I have no idea why Evans resigned, no explanation has been given. I am a little suspicious as his resignation and replacement occurred just before Party Conference, normally you would expect the NEC to meet first and at least wait a few days for Conference.
Needless to say there was a shortlist of one, Morgan McSweeney's choice, and obviously no election. I think it was Tony Blair who abolished the elections of General Secretaries. Well actually what Blair did when Conference elected a general secretary which he didn't approve of he simply appointed his preferred choice without any election. I think for a time there were two general secretaries, one elected and one appointed, although I am not entirely sure.
Anyway David Evans departure seems to have occurred with unusual haste, I wonder if it is in anyway connected with the apparent current internal battles occurring within Labour. Or maybe ii is connected to the Anonyvoter rigging scandal which is the subject of a Metropolitan Police criminal investigation and which Evans is up to his neck in.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2024/03/29/labour-unions-pile-on-pressure-over-anonyvoter-scandal/
Deleted - link seems to work now
Just pay for your own stuff.
So easy and would look a hell of a lot better than freeloading. I really don’t care so much about the rules on this one – it’s pure optics.
I think it’s as simple as that, Joe Public may use their uncles holiday home in Portugal but I doubt if unc is paying for their tickets to fly them there.
I’m just surprised over how quick they jumped into behaving like the tories did.
The WFA is just a staggeringly stupid political move and will just fuel their demise at the next election.
They got in on people not voting , reform have many years to polish their lies.
Walking into a shit-storm every step of the way just before conference was mind blowingly stupid.
The dull and boring party of governance have no critical thinking that the press will have a field day over all this?
Anything they could do now will be overshadowed by this farcical freeloading circus.
Starmer has lost heaps of credibility over all this. Probably not to recover now.
The public and press always are ready to pounce on things they see as low level corruption or greed. Stay away from it!
Remember the top earners always get away with it everyone else doesn't.
All that's left is for them to do the honourable thing and quit, call an election and let labour bring back all the independents to sort it all out with integrity and honour.
All that’s left is for them to do the honourable thing and quit, call an election and let labour bring back all the independents to sort it all out with integrity and honour
Or they could own their mistakes and give us a thwacking great budget?
But they won't because they haven't got a clue how to govern.
It's been said - copying the Tory's politics and ideals is just a bad cover version.
Better to have a strong ideology than appear to be freeloading incompetent centrists?
Nobody wins now. They need to own it.
An opportunity wrecked.
Who the F spends 14 grand on a birthday party!? Labour MPs ‘of the people, for the people’ my arse. Do they not realise that they are held to different standards?
Well-put.
Who the F spends 14 grand on a birthday party!? Labour MPs ‘of the people, for the people’ my arse. Do they not realise that they are held to different standards?
Its terrible, when will this lame duck government just call time on their leadership fiasco!
Its terrible, when will this lame duck government just call time on their leadership fiasco!
You should try a different tactic argee, belittling people's genuine and justified displeasure at senior Labour politicians blatant and obvious greed is probably not the best one.
Is it just me or is the Labour conference slogan like a bad Hollywood movie title? Given the last two months would be described as 'More of the same' I guess it's a tiny improvement but it seems to betray their lack of ambition. I wonder what other slogans they considered?
Blimey, less than three months into government and the mid-term blues has already kicked in :
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1837571997489836154
Down by 45 points from his first approval rating as prime minister??
And according to the naughty Guardian Starmer is now less popular than Rishi Sunak! How the **** did that happen in less than 3 months?
Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak, poll suggests
I guess it’s a tiny improvement but it seems to betray their lack of ambition
“Change Begins”
A lack of ambition, or grounded in the reality of the problems faced and the timescales needed?
Whatever/whichever, Robert Harris uses it to call for council houses built by (ie paid for by) councils… with increased central government funding…
https://apple.news/AoeeyG1oJRNG_AOQ7QvgKDA
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/22/labour-conference-liverpool-housing-crisis
This is pretty normal for any government at any point in its cycle, the tories got it for most of the 14 years they were in power and Blair and Brown's governments before that were in media crisis after crisis for dodgy looking stuff the whole time they were in power.
There’s nothing special about this and probably impossible to avoid as a government no matter how strait laced you are because there’ll always be something you misstep on or misjudge.
That's not an argument you heard very often on stw when the Tories were in government.
It turns out that 'media crises' are perfectly normal and it happened the whole time that Blair and Brown were in government.
So no "change" there then. Apart from perhaps a change of wardrobe.
It's not exactly a crisis, they are a majority government, there is no internal attempts to move anyone, it's all journalists raising stories due to funds and things that occurred during the pre-election, party fundraising and election campaign, most of it centred on one of the key labour fundraisers giving personal funds, or assets to assist labour during their campaign.
Pretty sure all i've read from watchdogs and parliamentary bodies is that no rules have been broken.
Pretty sure all i’ve read from watchdogs and parliamentary bodies is that no rules have been broken.
As was the case for the vast majority of MPs in the expenses scandal.
As was the case for the vast majority of MPs in the expenses scandal.
Good analogy, well apart from those who were made to pay back expenses and either resigned or were not selected at the next election, and of course, the expenses was taxpayers money, with a lot of clear fraud being treated with kid gloves.
Good analogy, well apart from those who were made to pay back expenses and either resigned or were not selected at the next election, and of course, the expenses was taxpayers money, with a lot of clear fraud being treated with kid gloves.
Good comeback, apart from me saying "vast majority" and not "all".
Anyway, the solution was given up thread: buy your own stuff.
Which they're doing now, but 'buy your own stuff' in elections is basically use party funds (donations), so things like the £4 million from venture capitalists becomes more important in future.
By the time Labour have done taking all these freebies they could have donated that money to plug the mystical black hole.
😉
With Waheed Alli having only donated 500k since Starmer took over Labour, they'd have had to buy a money press and attempted to implement MMT to fill that black hole ;o)
Which they’re doing now,
Having belatedly conceded that "within the rules" doesn't make it ok.
It’s not exactly a crisis, they are a majority government, there is no internal attempts to move anyone
Airvent specifically referred to 'media crisis'. The claim was made that Blair and Brown’s governments were in media crisis after crisis for dodgy looking stuff the whole time they were in power, despite is no internal attempts to move anyone.
What would you call Starmer defending his decision to accept nearly £2k from Lord Alli for "work clothing" and then after days of huge media coverage and criticism that he was out of touch with ordinary people publicly announcing that he will no longer be doing it?
I would call that a media crisis. Although some people like to amusingly refer to it as Wardrobegate, which of course brings back memories of Wallpapergate.
What were your views of Wallpapergate btw?
his decision to accept nearly £2k from Lord Alli for “work clothing”
Sorry I obviously missed a zero out. It should of course say his decision to accept nearly £20k from Lord Alli for “work clothing”
Phillipson is hilarious. In addition to receiving 14k for her birthday bash she’s also defending freebies to Wimbledon and Taylor Swift gigs. Seems her entire defence is one of ‘whts the point in being a senior MP/minister if you can’t enjoy the trappings of power. The rest of them clearly think the same. Next we’ll find out that Angie Rayners coke and pills in Ibiza were paid for by a labour supporting dealer.
The correct response from a strong government would be to stop all donations to any party or MP by putting rules in place. If any people want to donate to the workings of government then they donate to a central pool where the money gets equally distributed across each party to give all parties the same amount to run, stand for election and so on. After all, it is not very democratic for one party to have more money than another when it comes to elections.
I imagine the amount of donations would drop to pretty much zero if that was put in place.
by putting rules in place.
There are. It's how we know that Starmer and others accepted all the gifts.
they donate to a central pool where the money gets equally distributed across each party
Which s fine in theory, but the point for many donors is seeing the political party that they support in power. And it won't be distributed equally will it? If you're a working person standing in a seat against a wealthy opponent who can afford to spend any amount to get elected, how are you going to align it so that they get to spend the same amount? A quick google reveals that is about £41 thousand to get elected, while it's less than I though, it's still a chunk of change, what'll you do if the central pool can't afford it?
While I'd be all for taking money out of politics in theory, you then admit that it's either going to only be attractive or open to candidates like Rees-Mogg and the like who can afford to campaign, or the public pay for political parties which is equally unattractive - do you want your taxes to go to the Tories directly?
Starmer's approach is one of technocratic managerialism, the LP can sort out capitalism better than the capitalists, and therefore you need to look and behave like a manager. Hence swishly suited and booted, hobnob with the rich and behave dictatorally with the party and the nation. The poor can be fobbed off with flag-waving and football and the pensioners are all rich and vote Tory anyway. Not sure how well it's all working out though.
and glasses are stupidly expensive.
So what do you suggest the millions of people who need glasses and aren’t the beneficiaries of a bloke with £250 million quid in the bank do?
I remember Starmer debating Sunak and declaring that he would never, ever, use private healthcare. Is getting someone else to spunk £6k on glasses not a bit hypocritical?
Is getting someone else to spunk £6k on glasses not a bit hypocritical?
It depends doesn't it? If Starmer accepted the offer for spectacles by saying "I want these £6 grand pair thanks" then probably, if he just said "yes" to the offer without the cost or price being discussed at all*, then maybe he's just a bit too naïve, which so far, he's shown time and again that that's the case.
* which to be fair; given that he's terribly British, doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility, frankly
To be fair it’s a piss poor salary for running the country and glasses are stupidly expensive.
It's always been part of the 'holier than thou' approach to PMs, they get paid less than a lot of civil servants and so on, the whole Sue Gray thing is weird, as she is probably not in the top 100 civil servants pay list.
As for the clothes, again, i seriously doubt this was Starmer updating his wardrobe for himself, there would have been a stylist involved, and a focus on how to get him from being boring, to suitable for TV interviews and so on, it would not have been a pretty woman type event where Alli gave him his credit card and said go wild.
Same with the '14k birthday party', reading more into it, it was two events, both of which set up to provide her with a stage to schmooze with the press, potential donors, trade unions and industry people, not her family and friends having a good old sing song on her 40th, neither event took place on her birthday.
if he just said “yes” to the offer without the cost or price being discussed at all*
Brilliant ! That is the most hilarious attempt at justifying obvious greed which I have yet heard........he possibly had no idea how ridiculously expensive those glasses were because innate British politeness doesn't ask such things!
Pay might not be brilliant relatively but they do appear to become surprisingly rich when they leave office. I seem to remember Blair suddenly becoming a major landlord and Johnson going from borrowing from a 'remote cousin in Canada' and freeby wall paper to buying a house in the Cotswolds for millions and then having a pool installed. I'd be very interested to know how you do that, seems like a magic money tree does exist after all.
a focus on how to get him from being boring, to suitable for TV interviews and so on
Ah, that will explain why I find Starmer more interesting and less boring than I did previously, it's all down to the extraordinarily expensive suits that he now wears.
And yes I have heard that Philipson's £14k birthday party was in fact a political event. What else would you call a birthday party where someone mentions politics? Every politician's birthday party is a political event!
And yes I have heard that Philipson’s £14k birthday party was in fact a political event. What else would you call a birthday party where someone mentions politics? Every politician’s birthday party is a political event!
Even though it wasn't on her birthday, or attended by her kids and relatives, but by pretty much all work related people, if that was my birthday party i'd pay to not have it.
Pay might not be brilliant relatively but they do appear to become surprisingly rich when they leave office
I think for a long time it was the justification for the piss poor pay they receive. The Chancellor at the uni my wife works at earns more or less four times what the PM does, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same isn't true for most NHS trusts (as a random example) and senior civil servants. I think PMs even have to pay tax for living above the shop as a BIK.
I'm not surprised at some people balking at the leader of the opposition having "a look" plastered on him in the run up to a general election... we want people to just "be themselves"... not receive glow ups and "fancy" glasses... but this is the political reality... it comes with the job. Part of the campaign absolutely is nailing the look unfortunately. If you're doing everything you can to get your MPs elected.
Campaign costs not coming from the pocket of the candidate is still such a non-story... unless you're hungry for a story.
To be clear though... I feel differently about both the football and the off-shore large donation though. The first was an obvious own goal that should have been avoided. The second might be inside the rules... but it's dodgy as hell and I would like to see such donations banned and the rules changed.
Even though it wasn’t on her birthday
Yup, even though it wasn't on her actual birthday. It is not unusual to celebrate a birthday on a more convenient day than the actual date you know.
Her 40th birthday was central to the reason for having a party.
There's some desperate straw clutching going on here. With all the disingenuous excuses which would typically come out of Boris Johnson's mouth.
The correct response from a strong government would be to stop all donations to any party or MP by putting rules in place. If any people want to donate to the workings of government then they donate to a central pool where the money gets [s]equally[/s] distributed
I suspect that's pretty much what SKS would prefer; the problem is for anyone other than the tories to push for this it comes across as "they've got more donors than us - that's not fair". The reasonable solution is not to rely on donations but rather to accept that functioning democracy needs elected politicians and opponents and fund it through taxation.
across each party to give all parties the same amount to run, stand for election and so on.
All parties? So you think Countbinface, the BNP etc should have the same funds as Lab/Con/LibD, even pro-rata'd per seat that would seem to be funding the absurd?
After all, it is not very democratic for one party to have more money than another when it comes to elections.
You could argue it is entirely democratic - if your party is popular it will manage to raise more support!
I imagine the amount of donations would drop to pretty much zero if that was put in place.
I think the things people get especially uncomfortable with are donations to individuals/personal campaigns; huge donations (or multiple donations from the same individual) that are far bigger than any "ordinary" individual could make; donations that come from corporate bodies (and perhaps Unions) where there's clearly some direct link between donation and policy direction. It feels like that could be solved by separating donations from specific actions more clearly, e.g. donations to a central party only, who then distribute the funds on a clear, published and transparent basis (each party could decide if it wants to treat all seats the same, put more effort into seats it already holds, seats with narrow margins, seats with government ministers etc).
Clearly there is an issue with honours for donations - there should probably be some sort of block on any honor for anyone who directly (or through a company) could be seen to have donated to get it: perhaps anyone in the top 20% of donors is barred from honors for 3 yrs, top 10% for 5yrs, top 5% for 10 yrs. Equally anyone who had been given an honor should similarly be barred from donations of certain sizes, for certain periods.
There was an interesting point in an interview the other day. As shadow minister for Sport attending say Wimbledon would be declarable but the incumbent minister would not need to declare it, as that is a "ministerial duty". The question then arose whether attending your local football team playing was something you should pay for or should be given to an MP as a "gift". Ironically, if the person likes football the gift will have more impact than it would on me. However, if they liked football and are a pillar of their local community you might expect they sometimes go to see their local team play at their own expense. However, if I was an MP and had very little interest in football but the football team want me to see the great youthwork we are doing, understand the redevelopment of the stand or share concerns about how regulation affects smaller/bigger teams differently, then inviting me along as a special guest might be exactly how to get the issues on my agenda!
The pot idea is not viable, can you see trade unions funnelling £10 million into it knowing they're sticking £2 million or more into tory or reform pockets?
Same with the GBNews guys donations, or the reform multi-millionaire, they're not going for that, an idea that was floated a while ago was actual government funding used to pay for campaigning, but then you get another messy problem of spending £100 million on campaigns that could be spent on the NHS or the likes.
There’s some desperate straw clutching going on here.
Are you not entertained by the mental gymnastics?
Reeves says Labour is not a party of protest in response to anti-arms trade protesters saying we shouldn't be selling arms to Israel. She's right, they're the party of genocide and death, among a few other things. God I despise her!
Now she's doing her best Arthur Scargill impression...
Reeves says Labour is not a party of protest in response to anti-arms trade protesters saying we shouldn’t be selling arms to Israel. She’s right, they’re the party of genocide and death, among a few other things. God I despise her!
We don't sell arms to Israel.