Lammy

In every job I’ve ever done, expenses are paid for unavoidable costs like travel, overnight stays if working out of area etc. if you means test MPs, many would not even get expenses for maintaining a base in London or travelling there from their constituency? If you also stopped donors supporting them, I just don’t think anybody would want to be an MP.

In both the private and public sectors generally, expenses for equivalent levels of responsibility are not means tested and you'd get laughed out of court for suggesting for example that managers or directors should be "means tested" on agreed expenses.

What matters is a reasonable and fair expenses system. You can't set an "amount" because some MP's live a very long way from London, may live in differing areas where its cheaper or more expensive: some MP's have dependants at home who may or may not have different needs as in being at home all day.

If the WFA is means tested why not MPs expenses?

Mollygo

Who said anything about means testing?

The decision about WFA was made by deciding who they think could afford to do without it and who they think needed it. We already know about those on the cusp.

The basic annual salary of a Member of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons is £91,346, plus expenses, from April 2024.

Starmer is entitled to unlimited expenses for subsistence and travel.

The basic annual salary of a pensioner is nowhere near that.

This exchange, from your previous post in response to ^Wyllow3* was what I was referring to Mollygo?
‘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?’
Perhaps I misinterpreted.

Someone, please, explain to the Foreign Secretary the difference between a Head of State and a Head of Government.
We have the King and Queen to ‘look nice’ on our behalf.
The PM’s wife has no official role, there is no requirement for her to attend anything. If she wants to tag along to hold his hand, she can jolly well pay for her clothes, as can he for his , out of his salary.

Who said anything about means testing?

The decision about WFA was made by deciding who they think could afford to do without it and who they think needed it. We already know about those on the cusp.

The basic annual salary of a Member of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons is £91,346, plus expenses, from April 2024.

Starmer is entitled to unlimited expenses for subsistence and travel.

The basic annual salary of a pensioner is nowhere near that.

Most MPs can, as Casdon says, earn greater salaries outside Parliament. Molly go’s suggestion could be extended to any area of public service. It could be argued if a worker is from a privileged background, with parents who helped with the mortgage deposit, that individual should get less expenses than less lucky colleagues. Nope

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.

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?

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.

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* ?

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?

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.

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?

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.🤷‍♀️

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.

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.

present not preserve 🤦‍♀️

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.