Forum menu
Clearly a line he has drawn. IF I was a life long Arsenal fan I would put seeing them way above seeing Taylor Swift as would he I would guess. Makes it even worse though doesn't it - it is either ethically right to accept gifts for potentially undisclosed returns or it isn't.
I don't think it's overly confusing.
He's said that they are bringing forward new rules on accepting hospitality donations to replace 'best judgement' that exists now, and in the meantime has repaid the ones he has had while they sort it out.
We are now going to bring forward principles for donations, because, until now, politicians have used their best individual judgment on a case-by-case basis. I think we need some principles of general application. So, I took the position that until the principles are in place it was right for me to make those repayments.
The football hospitality are tickets he would have bought / has already bought (season ticket) but on the advice of security has moved from stands to box - the cost of a security detail for him in the stands being more costly.
“Now I’m prime minister, the security advice is that I can’t go to the stands. Or if I did, you’d have to do so much to the security and it would cost the taxpayer a fortune as a result,” he told ITV London.
“I’ve been offered tickets elsewhere in the ground where it’s more secure. We don’t have to use taxpayer money on additional security. And that’s why I’ve taken the decision that I have.”
I agree that more scrutiny is needed with WHY donations are being made, and indeed Alli is now being investigated for that. And maybe it would have been better still if the PM had also repaid the box tickets too. But that latter point is tricky for me - it's a security decision, to avoid criticism* do you say to hell with additional cost? Or should he cover the additional cost of going in the stands.
* [edited - I sad scrutiny, I mean criticism, I think. Nothing should be above scrutiny]
I don’t think it’s overly confusing.
Quite right. It was all ok, now some of it is ok. Perfectly clear.
One of the down sides of being a "star" is that public appearances become uncomfortable/risky so most stars act accordingly. I don't think he should create a major security headache with his own selfish and perfectly futile whim of going to a football match. He's clearly got enough income to pay for the box so if he wishes to go despite the risk and hassle for security he should pay for the box and leave the place in the stands for those who can't afford a box.
Personally I'd rather he spent his weekends meeting people on zero hours contracts or working all hours on minimum wage temporary contracts that sat in box at a football stadium.
So we now learn that a box at Arsenal is ok, but Taylor Swift tickets are not ok. It’s all very confusing.
Which is all the more confusing for all of the other MPs who haven't said anything and who don't have a large security detail:
Independent
Byrne, Ian (Liverpool West Derby), William Hogan CEO Liverpool Football Club Foundation, two tickets, £900
Liberal Democrat
Davey, Ed (Kingston and Surbiton), The Football Association, two tickets, £584
Labour
Carden, Dan (Liverpool Walton), Liverpool Football Club, two tickets, £900
Johnson, Kim (Liverpool Riverside), Liverpool Football Club, two tickets, £900
Jones, Darren (Bristol North West), The Football Association Premier League Limited, four tickets, £3,400
McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North), The Football Association Premier League Limited, two tickets, £2,000
Morris, Joe (Hexham), Premier League, two tickets, £1,660. A spokesperson for Joe Morris MP said: "All donations are declared fully in line with parliamentary rules and procedures."
Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South), The Football Association, two tickets, £522.54
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1952222/mp-freebies-taylor-swift-concert-labour-tory
Even more confusing that there isn't a single conservative on the register
Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let's not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth - it's not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and 'his supporters'.
Ed - I can see your PoV but disagree, I want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football's his hobby, I don't have a problem with keeping that up - just find a way to do it that isn't open to allegations of tickets for who knows what, and do it in a way that's cost effective to the tax payer.
Even more confusing that there isn’t a single conservative on the register
Already in the box next to the dodgy club owner.
Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.
The bit that I find confusing is that SKS has decided to pay back £6k, what about the others on the list?
It's sleaze and SKS has decided to pay his way out. £32k for workwear? That's an annual salary (or two) for many
what about the others on the list?
We are now going to bring forward principles for donations, because, until now, politicians have used their best individual judgment on a case-by-case basis. I think we need some principles of general application. So, I took the position that until the principles are in place it was right for me to make those repayments.
Up to them whether they repay them pending these new guidelines or not. Or; once the guidelines are agreed then they'll either repay or not depending on what the guidelines say. IDK what happens if they repay and then guidelines say that they are allowed, can they then have it back again?
I want my politicians to be humans and humanist rather than lording-it-over-the-plebs privileged pricks who line their pockets with "favours".
If he can't cover the total cost of his hobby himself he shouldn't go, if he needs more security than normal, he should pay. I can't afford an Oassis ticket so I don't go.
Signed, a pleb.
if he needs more security than normal, he should pay.
No. It's legitimate for a country to pay for the security detail of it's PM. Asking Starmer (or any PM for that matter) to stump up for the costs of their own security would make the position untenable for anyone who doesn't have millions in the bank. If you want your PM to an 'everyman' then suck it up.
IMO, if as the prime minister he invited to say the FA cup final, that is fine the invite is for the office not the person.
If he wants to watch his team, he should pay, security should be provided but he should pay for the box.
I can't go to watch my team any more other than on very rare occasions, I just accept that my life has taken me away from that possibility and make do with watching it on TV, and with the inflation we have had and my wages not keeping pace,I have stopped my subscription for the european games this year because I can no longer justify the cost.
If he wants to preach about making tough decisions, then ****ing make some that impact his life and not just tough on everyone else.
Come to think of it, why don't Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?
Never mind about freebiegate/wardrobegate, this really isn't good news for the government :
'Very serious’: Bank of England governor warns of Middle East oil shock risk
And Israel is seriously considering targeting Iran's oil infrastructure, I guess it's any easy target.
It might not be the direct fault of the government (although telling Israel not to expand the war but then giving it full support when it does won't have helped) but they will be held responsible for the knock on consequences to prices and the economy.
After all the Tories and the Liberal Democrats successfully managed to blame Labour for the consequences of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s
Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.
The only thing that's perfectly clear is that it was all fine, now some of it isn't fine. Of course, his supporters would be amongst the first to lambast the Tories for similar behaviour, but rank hypocrisy is all they seem to have left.
Ed – I can see your PoV but disagree, I want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up – just find a way to do it that isn’t open to allegations of tickets for who knows what, and do it in a way that’s cost effective to the tax payer.
This was dealt with several pages ago: pay for your own stuff.
Got to laugh at this process of going through the rules of what is and what ain't. Stop wasting our time. It's possible to abide by rules and it still not be a good thing.
You want to be whiter than white - pay for it yourself.
Any other option puts you close to a sleazy free-loading embarrassment that doesn't understand that wealth has probably been extracted to give you that donation off the back of workers.
Starmer protecting capital until the next lot are ready.
want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up
I would like my leader to a be a human for sure and stop talking up tough choices about crippling people that have suffered enough in these poorly managed economic times - by being a Labour leader and dealing with all the current domestic problems that are effectively fixable.
That would be several time over better than going to a football match as a measure of what is human.
Should I start a new thread? This one seems to be bogged down in posts about Starmer being a dick. I keep coming in hoping for some news as to how Labour is undoing some of the unfairness the Tories dealt out over their years in power and just find more examples of Starmer being a dick. So how about a new "Benefits of Labour" thread along the lines of the benefits of Brexit thread but hopefully with some benefits.
Yes I know it's early days but I'd like to see something about how Labour is implementing its promised major reforms of employment law for example.
Thing is I don't see many leaders in that there big house.
I see a lot of managers that swing from mediocre at best to ****ing woeful.
But there aren't any leaders, the prevailing culture of Westminster and fickleness of the electorate will prevent that.
We're arguing over degrees of shit.
"Britain will still have delegated sovereignty over Diego Garcia, the only inhabited island in the archipelago"
So Britain is decolonising the Chagos Islands, as instructed to do so by the United Nations, but only the uninhabited ones. The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping. I bet the Chagossian are grateful!
The Chagossians...... expelled by a Labour government, still being screwed 50 years later by a Labour government.
UN court rules UK has no sovereignty over Chagos islands
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
Still I guess it would be worse if we still had a Tory government, they would probably want to keep all those bits that nobody else wants. And I believe the deal involves Britain giving up sovereignty of Diego Gracia in 99 years, so one day the great great grandchildren of the expelled Chagossians might be able to live in the land of their forefathers. Thanks to British imperial generosity.
Ed this thread is about the current UK government, so it presumably covers all aspects of government affairs. There are undoubtedly some benefits which can be attributed to the current government, so let's hear them. No need to start a new thread.
I am going to go away and will try to think of some, if that helps.
Still I guess it would be worse if we still had a Tory government, they would probably want to keep all those bits that nobody else wants.
Despite the frothing from the tories the negotiations were started under them a couple of years back. The islands were a pain in the arse which were only being held onto because they are strategically important to the USA.
So think it was a case of persuading the yanks to cut a deal with Mauritius which then allows us to wash our hands of it.
The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping.
Interesting. I thought the island of Diego Garcia was also included in the decision, with ownership returning to Mauritius. But Mauritius is allowing the base to stay (hence the new 99 year lease for the base).
The Tory response... "we need leadership, not legalese"... pesky laws.
The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping. I bet the Chagossian are grateful!
It was a Mauritanian proposal that the Air Base stays. Jagdish Koonjul (the Mauritanian UN representative) said that Mauritius has “no objection whatsoever to the U.S. base in Diego Garcia. … The importance of the base cannot be underestimated.” He stressed the endurance of an agreement between the U.S. and Mauritius in that all Mauritian political parties support the base in Diego Garcia.
Yep, the only definite in all this was the US base staying put, Diego Garcia will have no incoming Chagossians any time soon, it's a strategically important base for the US, and it cost, and still costs them an absolute fortune.
I'm not sure what Mauritius get for it though, at a guess they'll get the US to pay them i guess.
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing
Benefits of writing the rulez 🙂
I doubt if anyone who actually holds down a job as an employee is allowed to accept gifts or tickets to things other than calendars or pens 🙂
I get that the PM getting invites to things or the Lord Mayor going to London things but other than them I don’t see why any MP should be allowed freebies unless it’s something they were involved with.
It’s not like the basic salary’s bad £91,346 and well expenses.
Mauritius should charge the "money printing machine" 100 times more with contract renewal every 3 years (adding another 50%)
Even with 100 times rental it is peanut to the money printing machine to have an air base there.
In the event of war, Mauritius will need whatever they can to sustain themselves and by being accommodating now they are they are selling their lives cheap.
With a population of 1.263 million (2022), they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish. In fact, the entire population could just received salary every month without needing to work.
I'm a bit surprised no-one in the press has brought up Reeves once having her parliamentary credit card suspended for spaffing it up the wall. Seemingly fiscal rules are only for the plebs.
they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish.
My very first reaction when I heard that Britain was handing back the Chagos Island to Mauritius was "the Chagossians are going to be pleased to be eventually going home. Then I hear that the Chagossians are furious with the deal because the United States airbase is staying, so my next thought was "Mauritius is going to make a fortune out of the Americans".
Then I discover that Britain isn't handing back Diego Gracia. I can't see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.
It's like some sort of comedy sketch. I bet they had a good laugh in the Foreign Office.......and then we told them, you can have these islands, we don't want them anymore"
I can’t see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.
AIUI all have been handed back but then Diego Garcia is leased back on a long lease, and with Mauritius's consent. It's quite complex - there's two risks; that a new Mauritian government may not honour that lease, and secondly that if the base doesn't remain then quickly China will move onto it - so the long lease is apparently a means to protect that (depends how well they adhere to international law - ironic coming from us, I know!!)
The deal to transfer the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius includes the tropical atoll of Diego Garcia, home to a military base used by the UK and the US that plays a crucial role in the region's stability and international security.
Under the agreement, the base will remain under UK and US jurisdiction for at least the next 99 years.
According to the Guardian link Mauritius will not have sovereignty of the Diego Garcia. The Chagossians are apparently not happy at all, unsurprisingly - it's their home.
It would be interesting to hear what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say on the "deal"
Justifying Americans staying there because otherwise the Chinese will quickly move in is nonsense. First of all it is for Mauritius to decide which, if any, foreign power should have a military base on their sovereign territory, not the US president.
And secondly if you use that as an excuse then the United States could expropriate any bit of land they fancy. There are loads of places throughout the world that China could have military bases on.
The solution is simply. The United States could build huge aircraft carriers, maybe another half a dozen on top of the 11 they already have. Very expensive I know but relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.
and according to the BBC, it's - basically the same as the Sky article.
Guardian link doesn't say Mauritius won't have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it "will remain under UK control"
Complicated, with different news outlets reporting differently. The actual Gov statement is definitive that
"Under the terms of this treaty the United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. At the same time, both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security. For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024
To other points:
One assumes the UN is OK with that; they are reporting the news without any complaint although they also note as you do that (not all) Chagossians are happy with the deal their government has agreed.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155326#:~:text=Under%20Thursda y's%20agreement%2C%20the%20UK,%2C%20a%20close%20Commonwealth%20partner%E2%80%9D.
Lastly - not sure if your comment is aimed at me or not - I'm just reporting what press is saying, but given the Mauritian Gov has signed to a deal (OK, not signed but agreed with treaty to follow) in which
"both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security
I don't think it's correct to say that US president is deciding where to put bases and expropriating the land, it's an agreement. The issue reported in the Sky article is that a future Gov may decide not to respect that agreement - and then what happens.
relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.
agree - but caveat that the Mauritian Gov has decided to agree to it in spite of what the Chagossian Islanders wanted, and also that
Mauritius will now be free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,
and separately there's a hope that even if D-G can't be resettled, Chagossians and their descendants will be prioritised for jobs there.
Guardian link doesn’t say Mauritius won’t have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it “will remain under UK control”
Well the Guardian describes it as Britain retaining "delegated sovereignty", let's see what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say about the deal. I guess they will have to accept it because the former complainant has accepted it.
The UN website link is just the UN news service, and that article is actually quite scathing of Britain's treatment of the Chagossians.
As I said, the Chagossians were shamefully screwed by a Labour government (which in many ways was an excellent government) and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.
and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,
Save's me looking at the Daily Mail's headlines in a day or twos time. 😉
Id like to think the only reason that the UK just didn't walk away from the issue and say, "Come on everyone, this isn't really UK territory, the US are calling the shots here, not us" is to try and take a bit of responsibility for an historic wrong but I'm likely being naive.
I'm going to guess that a lot of the Chagos islands and those of Mauritius itself, are going to be mainly under water in a few decades which is bloody sad to think about. Also inconvenient for the US... though they can always "do a China" and build the island up to outpace a rise in sea levels. They have the luxury of having the money to do so, unlike these tiny islands states.
I'm wondering what India thinks of this? I know they are getting worried about China's increasing influence in the Indian Ocean. I suspect they are glad to see the US maintain a base there.
Just thinking aloud really.
bikesandboots
Full Member
Can’t help but think that the UK, US, and the west will regret this one day.
Very different in so many ways but it does make me think of the deal we had over HK, 99 years sounds like a long time. Till it isn't.
Yeah and by then China will totally dominate the world anyway so it will be a moot point.
This much fabled return to UK stability (which is a bit of a red herring ) as current world stability tends control where private wealth flows.
(See the recent dip in the pound as money moves away from risk-on assets towards the dollar again due to concern about the middle-east. Most likely temporarily as world events tend to be faded by the market.)
However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1841759086355832934?t=2Ae3UavPhM0yJ823oZt3Ag&s=19
Ultimately I don't care so much about this stuff as it's pretty obvious everyone needs the UK government to invest a whole load of money themselves - and the markets will just behave how they want to. (Usually positive when there is a net flow from government.) But it's clear that the vagueness of what Labour call stability is not likely to be the leading factor of private investment.
Can you help me with that Rone - I have no idea if that £666m is either significant or 'normal' so clicked through the link to see if the article said how much is actually invested. In turn it goes through to a Times article
which then says "According to Calastone data, UK-focused equity funds have not registered a positive net inflow of capital since 2021"
and show a graph that has this as roughly an average outflow. The times article does say it shows a halt to a recovery and indeed the outflows in Jul/Aug were lower, but it doesn't really show enough for me to view it as a trend.
https://twitter.com/TallyCat8/status/1841763127706218754
I also note that if money is flowing out at that rate, and has been for three years, and the funds haven't crashed then the funds must be pretty big. IANAFE so don't know if this is the right number as context, but a google says the total value of UK equity funds is 2.6tn. If that's what the outflow is against, that's 0.02%
Have I got that right?
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?
They pay for the council tax, and the (10%) tax on services and utilities. Other than that (and the fact that they don't get an allowance to pay the costs) the flat comes with the job.
and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.
Nope, they've been screwed over by their own govt who made the 99 year lease deal.
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?
Law of unintended consequences - be a lot of agricultural workers rather pissed off if accommodation provided with work became a BIK.
However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.
Like everyone here I am not an economist but I do know someone who has been trying to raise a £3-5b UK based fund over the last couple of years and it has been slower than on previous years to get to this target long before the GE.