That Starmer fella...

The Labour Party conference has felt very low key to me, that Kier Starmer hasn't stayed to the end ( ok the UN meeting is important but) say a lot. After 14 years of opposition, 4 election defeats and a Landslide victory, it all feels rather flat.

Maybe this was intentional?

Maybe this was intentional?

If it was they probably shouldn't have used the weeks before to brief the press that is was going to be used to move away from messages of doom and gloom, and instead give the British people a sense of hope for the future.

Max head room

I don't really think stopping donations would do anything. We've all seen Tories make questionable decisions and then get appointed as "non executive directors" or paid for cushy speeches after they quit politics

Donations are far less problematic because they're in the public record

Donations are far less problematic because they're in the public record

transparency doesn't negate influence

Well it does IMO, but either way, stopping donations isn't going to magically fix politics overnight

I accept that it's quite different because I'm clearly not PM or in any way important.

You got it in one ✔️

Re 3 and 4, I remember listening to a really good long R4 programme on this years ago where the looked into alternative forms of funding.

The tl;dr was in places with state funding it was still sketchy. So you'd want to design a method of overcoming those.

1 & 2 strike me as eminently sensible. Especially when you see the negative impact on both MPs and their Staff of the sloppy mess we have today. It can obviously be done independently of 3 & 4 too.

Donations are far less problematic because they're in the public record

It just means it’s legitimised, as we’re seeing with some commentary at the moment pretending that this is all okay and very normal.

Limiting donations doesn’t magically fix politics, but at least it would become enforceable, and those that receive them would be (well, should be) under greater scrutiny.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-donation-son-gcse-housing-acoommodation-prime-minister-b1183972.html

" Asked about the donations, Sir Keir said that around £20,000 he had declared from Lord Alli for unspecified accommodation was for his teenager to study for exams in a “peaceful” atmosphere while the then-Labour leader was overwhelmed with media attention in the run-up to the election. "

bring back jeremy corbyn. he wouldn't be doing any of this dubious shit*

*i'm 95% sure

£20k rent to study for his exams, blimey. eton would be cheaper

He is actually making me angry now. What about the kids who didn't have enough to eat and shared their bedrooms with multiple siblings, while doing their GCSEs? Why didn't Lord Alli give them each £20k?

this ^

you could get a proper nice flat in mayfiar for this kind of rent ... for a year.

He declared £20k. That doesn't mean Ali gave him £20k. It means Ali had a spare flat and offered its use, which when Starmer declared it, was estimated to be at a value of £20k (i.e. if they had to buy it on airbnb).

We now know that to be about a fifth of the total he accepted over a period of five years. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the reason we know about these donations of about £100k over five years is because Starmer declared it.

Johnson received £110k IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION for redecorating his flat, which he didn't declare, then when challenged on it said he didn't remember where he got the money, then said he lost the phone where the agreement was made, then finally agreed that he'd received it. He didn't cop half as much flak for that as Starmer is for this, and Johnson lost an ethics advisor over it.

I couldn't give a fuck about any of this, and I can't believe anyone who's been paying attention to politics in this country does.

If the only difference between Johnson and Starmer is that one declared his bribes and the other hasn't then there isn't much difference at all. Unless they are all Catholics and confessing makes it go away.

johnson has terrible taste in clothes

If I offer you a suite at the Dorchester, it's not like I give you the money, it's just that they have a spare suite and I offer it's use. Hmm....

The stuff about Johnson is whataboutery. Ignoring that, he was likely the most venal politician of his generation, so he's probably not someone you'd want to be measured against.

Starmer's key campaign messages, were a return to steady, technocratic government, fairness and removing the grift from politics. I can see why people would bristle - the fact his personal ratings are below Sunak's tend to suggest people do care about the appearances.

I think Starmer had an astonishingly easy ride from the media in opposition. His team are disastrously complacent if they expected that to carry over into office.

Really? 20k for a year's rent seems cheap.

Yeah, he made a big deal about not being self-serving like the tories. Hard to have sympathy on this.

If I offer you a suite at the Dorchester, it's not like I give you the money, it's just that they have a spare suite and I offer it's use. Hmm....

That's not remotely it though is it?

He's wealthy and has properties, so he lent one to Starmer's son to use to get away from the press and limelight. It's in exactly the same bracket as Rayner spending NYE in his place in New York. If you knew someone with an empty flat in NYC and wanted a holiday would you take it? Full disclosure my BIL used to have a place in the Costa del Sol and we once stayed there for free.

Does is suck that, that isn't available to everyone? Yes, of course. In the same way that having a parent die before your exams isn't fair. Or having enough money for one parent not to work so they can support and coach you isn't fair.

What is the crux of the issue here? That Lord Alli, Labour member of the house of Lords of >25yrs who's been key in their fundraising efforts has too much contact with the Labour Party? It's not whataboutism to reference Johnson's flat it's a spot on compare and contrast that highlights why they're not the same issue.

The issue is that rich people convert wealth into power.

I think Starmer had an astonishingly easy ride from the media in opposition.

Really? My memory is they kept everything totally buttoned down, and even the slightest whif of a story got air - whether that be beer-gate or SNP Traps.

I think they were niave on this and slow to react. But ultimately they would have come into this thinking that having followed the rules would be sufficient. If anything Imo at this point the whole thing is more indicative of the Tory sugar rush the press have been buzzing off for the past 10yrs, and now journos need to fill column inches with a derivation of the same story.

It's being pitched as those these are constant revolutions being exposed, but it's not. It's just some lazy hacks and editors pasting from the disclosure list each day to avoid doing meaningful work.

I couldn't give a fuck about any of this, and I can't believe anyone who's been paying attention to politics in this country does.

Strong like

I'd absolutely take a free offer of a flat, but then I'm not PM and didn't campaign (partly) on taking the grift out of politics. Making a distinction between a rich friend paying for a suite at the Dorchester and offering an empty property seems like sophistry to me - they're both receiving something of value. Where do you draw the line?

Responding to an question or accusation with a counter accusation is whataboutery, right? I'll stipulate that Johnson was as picture perfect example of corruption as it's possible to find in UK politics, but that does nowt to address the issue of Starmer accepting hospitality.

Full disclosure my BIL used to have a place in the Costa del Sol and we once stayed there for free.

Did you feel any obligation to him, and a psychological desire to return the favour in kind?

So they've played to the rules. But the rules should be changed. Fair enough.