Lammy

If you take your political bias out of the way and substitute the names of the beneficiaries and use titles, Prime Minister, PM’s wife etc - does it make their behaviour acceptable?

Not in my book in this instance.

If the PM and his wife had not accepted gifts of clothing, alterations on said clothing and spectacles then they would not be in the position of looking grasping and greedy

The PM is a millionaire, he has a salary of over £150,000 plus expenses, his wife is reported to earn £50,000, yet they cannot afford to clothe themselves?

This is in stark contrast to removing the WFA.

Oh the irony…

I’m finding the focus on trying to find anything to smear or undermine the new government and particularly the prime minister tedious.
There’s a debate to be had about WFA but getting outraged about frocks and specs in an attempt to smear Starmer misses the point about important political economic and social issues.

It’s like donkey gate all over again

Another Question are these "gifts" subjected to Tax as a job perk?

Agreed, petra 👏👏👏

One of those women you mention came to give us a talk once and the tales she told were hair raising. They are very brave too.

petra

eggplant
There are thousands of good people out there but they’re just not in the public eye.
I work 3 days a week for a local charity. I don’t do this for ultruistic reasons, I do it because I enjoy it and the other volunteers are my friends.
But today I will be taking a lot of donations to a women’s refuge. The women who work here truly are decent good people and nobody knows their names.

Hundreds of thousands of good people, quietly going about their business and trying to do the decent thing.

Absolutely.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-lord-alli-wife-lady-victoria-clothes-b2613122.html
Starmer himself came forward last Tuesday to request the donation for his wife’s clothing should be added to his own declaration, which had been made on time. The story has been picked up after he had already corrected the record voluntarily. He made an error, but it was a minor one.

If Starmer' wife had appeared looking like a rag bag she'd have been critised, if we want her to look smart she should have an allowance

Question:
Should the PM and his OH have a clothes allowance from public funds or should they accept (huge) donations from people who may have vested interests?

But people are talking about these other things too.

That seems to be the comment made when someone wants to shut down a discussion.

This, in fact, is more important than Boris's hair or ill-fitting suits and Angela Rayner's trousers.

It's about tardy declaration of interests and whether a Party donor should be allowed free access to No 10 Downing Street.
Not just a Labour Party donor, the same applies to any Government.

eggplant
There are thousands of good people out there but they’re just not in the public eye.
I work 3 days a week for a local charity. I don’t do this for ultruistic reasons, I do it because I enjoy it and the other volunteers are my friends.
But today I will be taking a lot of donations to a women’s refuge. The women who work here truly are decent good people and nobody knows their names.

foxie48

Whilst the media is ranting about relatively unimportant things whether it's Richi's shoes, Angela's green suit people aren't talking about important stuff like the money that's been wasted on HS2, compensation for being locked up for stealing from the post office, being infected by blood products etc etc. If Starmer' wife had appeared looking like a rag bag she'd have been critised, if we want her to look smart she should have an allowance after all she is permanently in the public eye both here and abroad representing the UK.

👏👏👏

Calendargirl

Did Boris get similar donations for his wardrobe?

If so, it wasn’t value for money.

Hahaha!

No, Johnson had extremely, ridiculously expensive wallpaper and many expensive holidays, among other things.

I just think this is a storm in a teacup and the continued ridiculous comments on here about “if this had been a conservative… “ “Saint Starmer” etc are getting just a tad boring!

Calendargirl

Did Boris get similar donations for his wardrobe?

If so, it wasn’t value for money.

😂

Oreo

Well he’ll have to get out of the habit of being late in future, if he doesn’t want the censure/ bad opinion.

Agreed. I'm surprised.

I wouldn't have put inefficiency or procrastination down as either of Starmer's bad habits.

It is sleaze.
Of course there are very many more serious concerns to worry us, but when the solutions lie in the hands of a sanctimonious politician who delights in lecturing and intimidating the public, whilst doing all the things of which he has accused his predecessors, he exposes his fundamental lack of integrity. And the less fragrant Victoria is following the path of Cherie Blair and Meghan Markle, avid freebie collectors.

Whilst the media is ranting about relatively unimportant things whether it's Richi's shoes, Angela's green suit people aren't talking about important stuff like the money that's been wasted on HS2, compensation for being locked up for stealing from the post office, being infected by blood products etc etc. If Starmer' wife had appeared looking like a rag bag she'd have been critised, if we want her to look smart she should have an allowance after all she is permanently in the public eye both here and abroad representing the UK.

I feel as if the world is poised on the edge of many dangerous things. And this is what some people are spitting feathers over?

Surely there must be some decent, honourable people in politics and elsewhere?

Did Boris get similar donations for his wardrobe?

If so, it wasn’t value for money.

Mollygo

nightowl

The gifts for his wife were declared on Tuesday this week. The gifts were made before and after he came into office in July. They should have been registered within 28 days of receipt. He may or may not be investigated. Either way I have to agree, not a good look.

But Starmer’s been very busy and may not have had time to register the gifts.
Better late than never.

Yet if this had been a Conservative you would all be up in arms about it - double standards it seems!

My question would not be about his being late declaring it but why he felt he should accept such gifts in the first place - he is hardly counting the pennies (unlike many pensioners)

Oreo

It isn’t a smear campaign, it’s what happened.
It doesn’t have anything to do with Lammy tho, it’s just that he excused the buying of expensive clothes for the PM and wife by a Labour donor as them wanting to look nice, a bit lame really.

Not the best excuse to come up with!
A budget for the PM’s wife’s clothes or the absence thereof is hardly going to go down well when we are having the WFA axed and there are threats to bus passes and single occupancy council tax discounts !
Bad optics (and quite a lot like opening your mouth and then just putting your foot in it)

nightowl

The gifts for his wife were declared on Tuesday this week. The gifts were made before and after he came into office in July. They should have been registered within 28 days of receipt. He may or may not be investigated. Either way I have to agree, not a good look.

But Starmer’s been very busy and may not have had time to register the gifts.
Better late than never.

The gifts for his wife were declared on Tuesday this week. The gifts were made before and after he came into office in July. They should have been registered within 28 days of receipt. He may or may not be investigated. Either way I have to agree, not a good look.

But KS declared the gifts - that’s the bit that’s a smear - it is being suggested that he is hypocritical because he was down on the Tories for not declaring things like wallpaper etc, when that’s not what happened.

It isn’t a smear campaign, it’s what happened.
It doesn’t have anything to do with Lammy tho, it’s just that he excused the buying of expensive clothes for the PM and wife by a Labour donor as them wanting to look nice, a bit lame really.

It’s yet another smear campaign.

Nothing to do with Lammy (who is not Sir DL) other than that he explained the situation on LK (and possibly elsewhere) this morning.