That Starmer fella...

So what have you seen exactly that shows they're in the service of lobbyists?

Are you asking in good faith?

I'd say Wes promoting his own book at the Arden Strategies lounge (the lobbying firm run by New Labour ex-minister Jim Murphy), was a good example. I don't really have time to write a long list.

This article from the previous page has some details

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n16/peter-geoghegan/labour-and-the-lobbyists

The return of the sausages

Ok, but there is nothing in there to say they are in service to lobbyists, well because they haven't really done any thing yet.

Its all about that some of their MPs used to work in PR, that some people who were MPs now are lobbyists and that Labour has promised to work with business, which is kind of a non-brainer if they want growth. They haven't hidden that, its been part of their message for months, if not years.

They're doing lots of work to try to improve workers rights and have worked with the unions (yes they're lobbyists also) to settle public sector pay disputes. Don't see how that is not being on the side of the working people?

We will see in 5 years.

Indeed.

I suppose that the opaque funding of Labour Together, the *donations*from MPM Contact to Wes, Dan and Yvette, the presence of Ali at No 10 and Milburn at NHS meetings is all beans and sausages for the working people.

Economic growth, whatever that might mean, isn't for the little people. If it happens to benefit them, and there's no evidence to suggest it does, then that is not the intention.

If we get economic growth, then they can put money into public services, they can get things working again that currently broken.

Nobody successfully gets sustained economic growth.

I must say that talking down how shit the economy is, and the pervasive cloud of doom from the treasury, doesn't seem the savviest catalyst for an explosion of growth. Keep talking about how hard things are going to be and the sacrifices required and the consumer will eventually pull their horns in and save rather than spend.

I sincerely hope that Labour get their act together and the turbulence of the past month quickly dissipates. They have much work to do in order to improve the lives of many people. I dread to think of the consequences should labour fail in doing so. My biggest problem with Starmer/Reeves is I'm not sure what the pair actually stand for? Apart that is from vague notions about growth.

National renew, fixing the foundations, tough choices, sausages

Yes, something of a word salad isn't it? Growth seems to be the ultimate panacea for our mainstream politicians. I expect that growth means that they can turn round and say ' look everyone's much better off'! I suspect that this justifies them in not taking the difficult choices that need to be made. Especially so given that rising inequality is a particular challenge.

Genuine question, I promise, but why is she expected to meet world leaders and attend state banquets?

That all seems really old school to me. Might she not be happier just doing her own thing in the clothes she already owned rather than being forced to go along to events because of her job?

I fairly regularly have work events and business travel that I'm expected to do. My wife is invited to relatively few of these things. If she was invited and felt she really wanted to buy new clothes for the event, she'd buy something out of our own money. I'd never even think about asking to expense that, which feels to me like the equivalent.

I accept that it's quite different because I'm clearly not PM or in any way important. My point is why should his wife have all these obligations placed on her? I think that's where we should be pushing as a root cause, rather than worrying about what she should wear and who should pay.

Starmer sounding rattled this morning in interviews. Get him to his private box to calm down 🤣

Through a weird set of circumstance I went to one of those tea parties at Bukingham palace years ago.

When the Queen came out, her people went through the crowd pulling people out for her to say hello to. One guy standing next to me was asked out, but when he mentioned his wife was getting a cup of tea at the bar, the response was "I'm terribly sorry sir, I can't introduce you to the Queen without your partner" and he missed out.

I've literally no idea what the reason for rule is (so can't answer your question). It's clearly something ridiculous that should be binned, but these obligations do exist with heads of state and Starmer isn't going to be able to change them nor want to spend any capital in trying to deal with the inevitable 'snub' headlines that would come his was if his wife didn't come.

She should definitely get a warderobe allowance for them though.

Value sausages are invariably shit, why not have a free suit and glasses if you can get it

Genuine question for those who think Labour politicians shouldn’t accept donations; given that our political system is funded by donors, how would you propose to change it to remove that potential influence? Would you be happy for political parties, including those you disagree with, being solely funded by the state?

Would you be happy for political parties, including those you disagree with, being solely funded by the state?

This happens already to some degree, but it’s not much. Can’t quite remember the details but it’s not just a £X/seat funding, it’s something more proportional to votes I believe.

I’d be in favour of capping donations by some multiple of the median wage, and upping the party funding per vote, for what it’s worth.

(Edit: I don't think businesses should be able to donate either, just individuals, to maintain at least some sense that democracies are about people, not money)

(Edit 2: and not to individual MPs, just parties)

I see where you're coming from but I think it is the expectation around the world and would probably be viewed as a snub to some countries/leaders if it didn't happen.

It's obviously a spouse thing rather than a wife thing, there was the same with Dennis Thatcher and Philip May, but for blokes you can just have a few suits and no-one will notice.

Money buys influence and power in our system. If I had £300m, Keir Starmer would be more disposed to listen to my views, just as he is disposed to listen to Lord Alli's now. That cannot be right. My suggestions are:

1). There should be no donations of entertainment and holidays allowed. I can't see any justification for an MP being given tickets to a Taylor Swift concert, or holiday flight to New York. The sole purpose is to buy access and influence.

2). The cost of politics should be reformed, reducing the number of MPs and lords dramatically. In turn, the salary of MPs and ministers should be raised to be competitive with the private sector. There should also be proper state funding for each MPs staffing costs, but MPs should not be permitted to have any additional non-state funded researchers. The whole apparatus around MPs staffing should also be reformed, and adminstered via a new centralised HR body.

3). There should be a significant increase in the level of state funding allocatable to political parties, divided on a formula of vote share and elected representatives at a local, regional and national level. I don't know what that formula should be.

4). Parties should be able to raise a capped amount of funds per annum, to allow the entry of new political parties, but that cap should be set quite low. In addition, there ought to be donation caps.

What is the net cost of all this? I don't know, but I think probably in the order of £500m per annum, and maybe a lot less. In the grand scheme of things it would be a worthwhile investment with huge benefits for the operation of democracy in this country.

1). There should be no donations of entertainment and holidays allowed. I can't see any justification for an MP being given tickets to a Taylor Swift concert, or holiday flight to New York. The sole purpose is to buy access and influence.

100%. I'd restrict it to just cash — no loans, no property, or anything else.