Sir Kier Starmer ...... you can't make it up .....because it's true

[Penelope]

25 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

It seems on the Starmer / Labour  front the man / leader can do no right … it’s getting a bit tedious… 

The truth is often painful.... and tedious.

 

25 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

You lot expect the Prime Minister to turn up with a regular season ticket and sit in the stands?

No, but I do expect any person in his postion, on his salary, with his bank balance to pay for their own bloody box.

[Flashman]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Finally some sense. 
 

You lot expect the Prime Minister to turn up with a regular season ticket and sit in the stands? Getting abuse and rubbish thrown at him by any drunken idiot who thinks it’s Their right to give him “a piece of their mind”?! 
 

The First Lady has a similar arrangement accepting gifts of outfits etc. 

 

When Corbyn was Labour leader, he was heavily criticised for being “scruffy” and not well dressed enough. 
 

Isn’t he one of the MP’s with regularly the lowest submitted expenses? 
 

Also I’d like to see his gifts list compared to that of Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove, et al… 

They've only been out of office for a few weeks … I’d bet if you compared him to similar big players it would paint a different picture. 

Add in the fact he was leader of the opposition and now Prime Minister, he’s undoubtedly going to get more offers to attend things than some random back bench MP that no one knows. 
 

Add onto that, the Tory MP scandal where they were caught on video saying how they fiddle the gifts / expenses and get their donors to falsely under value things so they don’t have to declare them … 

 

So I again highly doubt those figures are truly accurate. 

It seems on the Starmer / Labour  front the man / leader can do no right … it’s getting a bit tedious… 

I for one expect our countries elected leader to attend events, functions, etc.

I expect them to do so in style, with clothing, equipment, etc befitting of their role to represent our country. 

 

 

Starmer’s played the ethics card since he became Leader of the Opposition.  He lectured - endlessly - about how he would clean up politics.  His election acknowledgement speech was announcing the “government of service”. 
Pardon us plebs if we point out his  hypocrisy, by taking £107,000 in gifts this year alone. That’s more than double the next highest MP (also Labour) taking freebies. 
Starmer can do what he wants - but he should pay to do things not related to “work” at his own expense. This means that there’s no suggestion of undue influence. 
I’ve been on works jollies over the years. Firstly, anything over £50 must be disclosed to one’s company (a financial services co. requirement). And I knew that I was expected to pick up the phone when the host wanted to chat at a later date because that’s the purpose of corporate hospitality. 

[old man]

4 hours ago, Flashman said:

Yet Sunak managed it, as did Corbyn.  He could simply pay for his own ticket, wherever it is in the ground, and let security manage their job of protecting him?
Still, all of this is predicated on believing that Free Gear Kier is a man of the people, who regularly attends football matches. And tennis. And Wembley pop concerts. And horse racing (all of which he attended for free as a gift since June…

First and only rule for politicos, get someone else to pay?

3 hours ago, Mice! said:

I'd honestly rather he was out the way in a box, going to events like these are just hardly worth mentioning really,  it's just what the corporate lot do.

Yep, it's declared its out there, it's not receiving the use of an island and plane whenever he wants, and he's tucked away in a box 👍

 

So could most of those in the boxes, but it's all about who's mates with who.

As always?

[udderlyoffroad]

4 hours ago, Flashman said:

Starmer’s played the ethics card since he became Leader of the Opposition.  He lectured - endlessly - about how he would clean up politics.  His election acknowledgement speech was announcing the “government of service”. 
Pardon us plebs if we point out his  hypocrisy, by taking £107,000 in gifts this year alone. That’s more than double the next highest MP (also Labour) taking freebies. 
Starmer can do what he wants - but he should pay to do things not related to “work” at his own expense.

So much this; but I still think we're concentrating on the wrong thing obsessing over football corpo boxes. 

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Also I’d like to see his gifts list compared to that of Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove, et al… 

They're out there, and much hay was made of it at the time.  Princess nut-nuts' choice of wallpaper, if you recall.  Suspect Rees Mogg - like a lot of old money - isn't particularly interested in freebies.  What Gove wants for free isn't the kind of thing you'd declare a nominal value for unless you're in the drugs squad, trying to put a 'street value' on your latest bust of no-no snow.  Allegedly.

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

I for one expect our countries elected leader to attend events, functions, etc.

I expect them to do so in style, with clothing, equipment, etc befitting of their role to represent our country. 

And they can bluddy well dress themselves.  Like every other world leader.  At the very least, they could accept clothing gifts from (British) brands who want cachet rather than creepy Lords who want a Downing St pass.

I'd remind you that Keir Rodney has his own statutory instrument to protect his pension - seriously - and lectured us very piously on this 'government of service', and then immediately starts accepting things he knew would have to be declared.

[Lloyd90]

7 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

As has been said, Sunak supposedly did.

Perhaps he should start to do something right then 

He did after all, say he was going to end the sleeze in politics....

Sunak? The son in law of the Billionaire? Personally worth £600,000,000+? 
 

The one who also supposedly filled his own car with petrol that turned out to be a PR stunt? 

7 hours ago, Penelope said:

The truth is often painful.... and tedious.

 

No, but I do expect any person in his postion, on his salary, with his bank balance to pay for their own bloody box.

He couldn’t afford it… his £166k+ salary works out to around £8k a month (before taking off pension contributions). 
 

Sounds like a lot until you take into account all the things he has to do / attend as a head of state… £8k wouldn’t come anywhere close to covering any of it. 

[Newbie to this]

39 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sunak?

Yes, supposedly.

39 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

The son in law of the Billionaire? Personally worth £600,000,000+? 

What's your point

40 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

The one who also supposedly filled his own car with petrol that turned out to be a PR stunt?

Fail to see any relevance. What has this got to do with Sunak going to football matches 

 

[JohnfromUK]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sounds like a lot until you take into account all the things he has to do / attend as a head of state

No.  The "Head of State" is the Monarch (King or formerly the Queen), NOT the Prime Minister who is simply the 'Leader' of His Majesty's Government.  The Prime Minister does NOT attend anything as "Head of State".  If the King as Head of State could not attend (e.g. illness) another member of his family or personal staff (e.g the Queen, Prince of Wales, Princess Royal) would take his place.

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

all the things he has to do / attend as a head of state

The things he "has to do/attend" as Government Leader are those associated with government, though as HM's 'Leader", he does support HM in occasions of State (as does the "Leader of His Majesty's Opposition" and generally other prominent political figures).  

Many 'non-state' events (e.g. sport) are attended from choice, not because the Leader's job requires it.

 

[Mungler]

9 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sunak? The son in law of the Billionaire? Personally worth £600,000,000+? 

Don’t see the relevance unless jealousy is some relevant factor here.

Sunak was independently a self made millionaire prior to entering politics. Indeed, there was a point in time he had a proper job and a proper career and has done a day’s graft - ironically unlike the current business Secretary, a career politician who hasn’t done a proper days work in his life and who is lecturing us now about the benefits of working from home - clueless moron. I despair at the lack of any quality or brainpower in the current government. I digress.

What is relevant is the white horse 2TK set himself up on for years. Disappointing as it will be for his supporters, the grift / snout in trough leaves a bad taste - barely out of the gates and 6 figures in freebies. A tenth of that in any other role and you would be sacked. And as for what’s gone on with Lord Ali; well we could start another thread.

This government got in on less votes than the losing Corbyn campaign and by the time the October statement lands labour will have blown its own toes off and we’ll be back to looking at our calendars and waiting for the Conservatives to get their act together.

.

Edited September 20 by Mungler

[udderlyoffroad]

 

[Mungler]

3 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

Love the Frisby. Seen him in that very venue and at Southend - quite a few well known politicians in the crowd at Southend too. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

NO maybe about it......................................

[old man]

10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sunak? The son in law of the Billionaire? Personally worth £600,000,000+? 
 

The one who also supposedly filled his own car with petrol that turned out to be a PR stunt? 

He couldn’t afford it… his £166k+ salary works out to around £8k a month (before taking off pension contributions). 
 

Sounds like a lot until you take into account all the things he has to do / attend as a head of state… £8k wouldn’t come anywhere close to covering any of it. 

I'm constantly amazed how some keep defending these greedy, feckless mp's.

They seem unable to grasp the situations that their positions dictate?

Ah, sorry. Awake now, greed and troughs.

Edited September 20 by old man

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, old man said:

I'm constantly amazed how some keep defending these greedy, feckless mp's.

They seem unable to grasp the situations that their positions dictate?

Yes, quite bizarre, isn't it?

[Old farrier]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

No.  The "Head of State" is the Monarch (King or formerly the Queen), NOT the Prime Minister who is simply the 'Leader' of His Majesty's Government.  The Prime Minister does NOT attend anything as "Head of State".  If the King as Head of State could not attend (e.g. illness) another member of his family or personal staff (e.g the Queen, Prince of Wales, Princess Royal) would take his place.

The things he "has to do/attend" as Government Leader are those associated with government, though as HM's 'Leader", he does support HM in occasions of State (as does the "Leader of His Majesty's Opposition" and generally other prominent political figures).  

Many 'non-state' events (e.g. sport) are attended from choice, not because the Leader's job requires it.

 

Good points 

lot of people seem to forget 

he’s doing his job ( run the country) or at the very least managing the people who are running it 

he should get to work in his own car take a sandwich box and flask like the rest of us working people

then if he’s got a few ££ over at the end of the week pay for his wife’s clothes then pay for his entertainment and holidays like the working class people that he is supposed to be representing 

[Flashman]

Lord Frost wrote this today for the Telegraph:

"Socialism means never having to say you’re sorry

In Opposition, Keir Starmer liked to preach about Tory avarice. Meanwhile, he takes every freebie going

‘When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” So said ex-president Richard Nixon. Perhaps he has inspired Keir Starmer. “When Labour does it, it’s not immoral.” 

We know now the simple fact that Sir Keir has taken more gifts than any other MP. Still it’s worth looking at the detail on Parliament’s website. The expensive hospitality tickets at half the Premier League grounds in England. The free holiday. The National Theatre tickets. The “Jingle Bell Ball”, whatever that is. The specs that cost the same as a family’s annual holiday. The “work clothing”, as it is delicately described – perhaps he was hoping we would think they were overalls for this horny-handed son of a toiling toolmaker? 

Clearly Sir Keir agrees with “Big Bill” Haywood, the American union leader and Soviet sympathiser, who said of his own lifestyle “Nothing’s too good for the working class.” 

It’s true we didn’t know quite what to expect from Labour in government, but one thing I did think we’d get was puritanism. A stern, moralising, we-know-best policy, that familiar sheer socialist oddness, veganism, anti-smoking, compulsory health checks in the office, all administered by the kind of people who actually enjoy sorting their rubbish and think everyone else should too. 

That curious earnestness and detachment from ordinary pleasures, that belief that the right public policy can control human nature, which George Orwell mocked in the 1930s and John Betjeman parodied in his poem Huxley Hall in the 1950s, “the deep depression of this bright hygienic hell”, the “free thinker” sitting in some bleak nameless new town waiting for his weekly lecture on “sex and civics”. 

Well it’s true that most of us are going to get exactly that treatment. Wes “Savonarola” Streeting is clear we must all give up our pleasures and learn to live within the stern dictates of the NHS. Bridget Phillipson will force on us her new history-free, diversity-rich, socially conscious national curriculum. Cold Sir Keir’s atheism is fine, but silently praying near an abortion clinic will land you in court. 

But it doesn’t look like the PM and his team are going to live like that. Sue Gray gets the highest ever salary for a special adviser. Labour donors and political cronies are shoehorned in on the public purse. Lord Alli gives Angela Rayner a holiday in New York. And for proud Sir Keir at the top of this merry band of brothers, let the free football and the Taylor Swift tickets roll.

Some Labour ministers can see how all this comes across, to judge by their gritted teeth and flashes of anger this week. I don’t blame them. Perhaps they can see it doesn’t look good when pensioners face the winter cold while a Niagara of public cash pours out to the brothers in Aslef. Perhaps they don’t like it when haughty Sir Keir says he needs VIP treatment at the football to avoid mixing with the hoi polloi in the cheap(ish) seats? Maybe some still have some residual socialist conscience, some distant echo of Welsh valley non-conformism, some folk memory of Stafford Cripps and austerity under Attlee? 

Or perhaps they remember Harold Wilson’s comment that “the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”. Even Sir Keir quotes this from time to time, though perhaps less so recently. In 2021 he said, “Our own moral crusade must be to address the inequalities and injustices that this crisis has so brutally exposed.” Is that the injustice in allocating the hospitality boxes at Arsenal? 

It’s this self image that is the problem. The truth is that Labour politicians think they are good people because their cause is just. So they can safely be exposed to temptations that would lead astray lesser, fragile, mortals such as members of the Conservative Party. How can you mere voters suspect such good people as us of having impure motives? Cut us some slack. Don’t you realise we’re trying to build the New Jerusalem here? 

Not every crusade, of course, reached Jerusalem. The Fourth Crusade, in 1204, got no further than Constantinople, sacked it, and took most of the gold and the art home to their leaders’ palaces. Back in Europe, they couldn’t understand what they’d done wrong. Perhaps that’s the sort of crusade Sir Keir sees himself leading? 

Until July 4, Starmer couldn’t see a government minister without accusing them of venality. Labour repeatedly accused the Tory mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, of corruption on the basis of the most flimsy evidence. But now it has changed its tune. The deep deep silence of government prevails. Why answer questions from the little people? After all, we are the masters now.

It won’t do. High and mighty Sir Keir needs to show some humility and change his and his team’s behaviour. Moralising Leftist politics doesn’t excuse taking for free what others must pay for. Everyone is subject to temptation, even socialists. Human nature doesn’t change. 

Betjeman’s narrator in Huxley Hall ends his reflections:
“Not my vegetarian dinner, not my lime-juice minus gin, 
“Quite can drown a faint conviction that we may be born in Sin.”

Think on it, Sir Keir."

 

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

he should get to work in his own car take a sandwich box and flask like the rest of us working people

There was a sketch to this effect in "Yes, Prime Minister" where Jim Hacker wanted a cook as his wife was out a lot ....... and whilst there were high grade dining facilities for all the Civil Servants (what a surprise) - there was nothing for the Prime Minister.  Sir Humphrey said it wasn't a problem and he could go out and hire a cook - but it would be at HIS own (Hacker's) expense as he was in effect 'at home'.

If he was entertaining official guests (such as Ambassadors, members of other Governments, Business Leaders, etc.) the Gov't would pay, but not for just him, or him and personal friends.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes a classic and so true.

[TOPGUN749]

11 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sunak? The son in law of the Billionaire? Personally worth £600,000,000+? 
 

The one who also supposedly filled his own car with petrol that turned out to be a PR stunt? 

He couldn’t afford it… his £166k+ salary works out to around £8k a month (before taking off pension contributions). 
 

Sounds like a lot until you take into account all the things he has to do / attend as a head of state… £8k wouldn’t come anywhere close to covering any of it. 

9 times as much as a pensioner losing their winter fuel allowance! That’s without all the other income he has!

[Vince Green]

On 19/09/2024 at 10:05, Mungler said:

 

Starmer is special though; net worth of £7m plus and nose in the trough.

I was surprised to learn a few years back that Jeremy Corbyn is a multi millionaire . He cleverly gives out the impression that he hasn't got a pot to ..... in

[Weihrauch17]

On 18/09/2024 at 21:31, JohnfromUK said:

From the article linked above;

Sir Keir defended his right to continue to take football freebies earlier this week, saying: "If I don't accept a gift of hospitality, I can't go to a game."

Why can he not 'buy' a ticket with money from his earnings?  It's what the vast majority of other fans and attendees at matches have to do.

He criticised Johnson for sleaze, but seems to be even worse himself.

A box is £8k a game, the corruption is off the scale.

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

Don’t see the relevance unless jealousy is some relevant factor here.

Sunak was independently a self made millionaire prior to entering politics. Indeed, there was a point in time he had a proper job and a proper career and has done a day’s graft - ironically unlike the current business Secretary, a career politician who hasn’t done a proper days work in his life and who is lecturing us now about the benefits of working from home - clueless moron. I despair at the lack of any quality or brainpower in the current government. I digress.

What is relevant is the white horse 2TK set himself up on for years. Disappointing as it will be for his supporters, the grift / snout in trough leaves a bad taste - barely out of the gates and 6 figures in freebies. A tenth of that in any other role and you would be sacked. And as for what’s gone on with Lord Ali; well we could start another thread.

This government got in on less votes than the losing Corbyn campaign and by the time the October statement lands labour will have blown its own toes off and we’ll be back to looking at our calendars and waiting for the Conservatives to get their act together.

.

I don't disagree with much of what you've written, but what do you define as working from home and what's the issue with it? 

[udderlyoffroad]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't disagree with much of what you've written, but what do you define as working from home and what's the issue with it? 

I think this is what he's alluding to.

3 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

A box is £8k a game, the corruption is off the scale.

I'm sorry I still don't get it on the corpo boxes.  He's contained, his security is happy, thus costing the taxpayer less, the ground and its stewarding team are probably happy as it's one less problem for them to worry about on match day, and it's declared.  It's not corruption, by definition.  For it to be corruption it would be undeclared.

Maybe it's just because I don't give two hoots about football.

But why are we concentrating on this, rather than security passes being given to donors clothing the PM's wife??  That's a new one and surely the real issue?

 

[Mungler]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't disagree with much of what you've written, but what do you define as working from home and what's the issue with it? 

 

I had drinks with 5 business owners last night and the discussion of working from home came up and there was unanimous agreement that it's a disaster.

1. there is natural discourse in any office that glues people together and shares information. For us, we have different departments that cross feed each other work. That work and those leads are delivered instantly by email and then followed up by a short trip to the individual's desk for a face to face briefing. Any gap or break in that, or slavishly typing out memos leads to inefficiency and incomplete communication.

2. training. It is impossible to deliver proper remote training, especially to juniors (be that hard skills or soft people skills). It has to be in person.

3. lack of productivity. It's strange how everyone in support of WFH swears blind on-line that they are at their most productive working from home, but in person I hear all the stories. A senior (and I mean very senior) bank executive who opens up her work laptop and Word and then shoves a folding piece of card board into the keyboard to nip out for a long lunch with mates and to return to delete 300 pages in Word with the letter "r" scrolling across the page. A senior sales executive who learnt a long time ago how to program Outlook to send advanced "nothing-esque" emails to show work activity whilst he was out playing squash. Then there are those who are just unreachable / disappeared on a Friday afternoon - they're not at their desk, they're not answering calls and there's no response to emails because the laptop is shut; what are they doing? If at work, a short trip to the desk / office would answer the question, but remote working means managers are reluctant to press remote absenteeism in case they are seen to be picking or spying on some one or they are fobbed off with "I had just finished a long on line meeting and was taking a short well earned break".

All the turkeys that voted for this Christmas shouldn't be surprised when the world moves nearer to having people from India do the work from their homes.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think this is what he's alluding to.

I hadn't seen that article. Thank you for that.

[Flashman]

Stop Press:  Starmer & Rayner (the worst double act since Cannon & Ball) have magnanimously announced that they will give up taking free clothes from Lord Alli.

Extra late edition: Reeves also says the same thing. 

Nothing like being caught at it - bring out the onion for more crocodile tears. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

I had drinks with 5 business owners last night and the discussion of working from home came up and there was unanimous agreement that it's a disaster.

1. there is natural discourse in any office that glues people together and shares information. For us, we have different departments that cross feed each other work. That work and those leads are delivered instantly by email and then followed up by a short trip to the individual's desk for a face to face briefing. Any gap or break in that, or slavishly typing out memos leads to inefficiency and incomplete communication.

2. training. It is impossible to deliver proper remote training, especially to juniors (be that hard skills or soft people skills). It has to be in person.

3. lack of productivity. It's strange how everyone in support of WFH swears blind on-line that they are at their most productive working from home, but in person I hear all the stories. A senior (and I mean very senior) bank executive who opens up her work laptop and Word and then shoves a folding piece of card board into the keyboard to nip out for a long lunch with mates and to return to delete 300 pages in Word with the letter "r" scrolling across the page. A senior sales executive who learnt a long time ago how to program Outlook to send advanced "nothing-esque" emails to show work activity whilst he was out playing squash. Then there are those who are just unreachable / disappeared on a Friday afternoon - they're not at their desk, they're not answering calls and there's no response to emails because the laptop is shut; what are they doing? If at work, a short trip to the desk / office would answer the question, but remote working means managers are reluctant to press remote absenteeism in case they are seen to be picking or spying on some one or they are fobbed off with "I had just finished a long on line meeting and was taking a short well earned break".

All the turkeys that voted for this Christmas shouldn't be surprised when the world moves nearer to having people from India do the work from their homes.

 

 

 

 

I hadn't seen that article. Thank you for that.

There will always be shirkers and they will always find ways to not do the work they are paid to, that is down to company's and managers to tackle.

The other element you haven't touched on is whats good for employees, your entire post seems to be from the perspective of an employer. Even if there were a slight loss of productivity (I'm not sure there is broadly speaking) I'm sure it'd be a huge win for many employees, is that not a valid argument to keep it. 

I'd like to see the PM and MPs paid a realistic wage, with nothing but the essentials claimed on expenses and stamping out gifts altogether. It would foster a more open and honest government with less scope for corruption.