Sir Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria accepted donations towards clothing because there are no taxpayer funds to cover UK leaders’ wardrobe costs, David Lammy has said.
The Foreign Secretary said the couple had accepted donations so they could “look their best” to represent the UK when other countries allowed lavish, taxpayer-funded budgets for clothing for their leaders.
Is that actually how these people think? Or is it just Lammy being thick as mince as usual?
Is it just me or is there something a bit off about allowing another man to buy your wife clothes……
Is that actually how these people think? Or is it just Lammy being thick as mince as usual?
Not mutually exclusive, so Yes and Yes.
It’s not just you, Andrew C. One wonders what the donor received in return, too…
If we thought appearances matter on the world stage, we wouldn’t have a Foreign Secretary who looked like a puzzled African dictator.
I absolutely cannot wait for Lammy to meet President Trump 🙂
A portrait of Alli is in the National Portrait Gallery collection,[41] which contains “portraits of the Nation’s great men and women”.[42]
Fucking LOL.
Yes and yes.
That’s exactly how they “think” and Lammy is SO stupid it gives ME headaches!
@Andrew C
If my wife was thrown into a position where the media around the world would examine and critique every clothing choice she made in her supporting role beside me representing the UK, I would want her to have a very generous clothing budget if only for her mental well being. If someone who thought along those same lines would fund that budget, then so much the better.
‘Wife of the prime minister’ of the UK isn’t a role, therefore does not come with a clothing allowance. Lady Starmer is under no obligation to appear in public.
Not just that Marius, but during the election campaign her and the kids had to be hidden away because certain of Labour’s “New Britons” (especially peaceful religionists of the Allahu Ackbaru kind) wouldn’t have welcomed the fact that she and the kids are Jewish.
Can’t have them screaming insults at the future PM’s wife, can we?
Might start a trend of voting for Sharia MP’s.
As usual, it’s more a question of joined-up rules and consistent application. How much are PMs reasonably allowed to spend getting into the role, and on what? Does it matter if it’s donations or taxpayer money? Is there a line between this and Bojo’s gold wallpaper, or are you just being partisan?
Not a fan of Lammy, and his ‘trust us we’re reasonable people doing reasonable things that happen all the time’ shtick doesn’t fly.
@NeilsR – What aid does a taxpayer get in purchasing a suit to go for a job interview, or support for clothing in their day-to-day job? Answer: None (military uniforms excepted) and HMRC have for decades been prosecuting (or threatening to prosecute) people who do try and expense clothing on the companies dime, quite a few TV types have been put through the wringer on that one.
So my answer is that MP’s and even PM’s should be bound and governed by the same rules and rude enforcement by HMRC as the general public are.
Never happen though, so they have to be shamed into it.
Vile creatures.
Well MP’s had the opportunity to use taxpayer cash for their ‘costs related to being an MP’ and it was
usedabused for such things as toilet seats (two), a duck house and having the listeria cut down.Helpfully, Tony Bliars expenses were shredded ‘by mistake’ before anyone could have a look at them….
Addolff wrote ‘. . . having the listeria cut down.’
I know it’s a typo, but it’s a lovely one. The whole subject is just so toxic . . . .
llater,
llamas
No doubt it was the want of a clothing allowance that kept Norma Major out of the public eye.
John Galt: «during the election campaign her and the kids had to be hidden away because […] she and the kids are Jewish».
There was also just below the surface a question concerning the unuxorious behaviour of the tool-maker’s son while the first nipper was WiP and which a tasteless journalist might have raised, given the opportunity. Guido did some hinting.
Yeah, I read that in Guido at the time (related to similar insinuations in Lord Ashcroft’s book on TTK “Red Knight). Since they only insinuated and never expanded, I presumed they had accusations that they couldn’t prove sufficiently to stand up against a biased UK libel court.
I don’t know though.
@John Galt:
“So my answer is that MP’s and even PM’s should be bound and governed by the same rules and rude enforcement by HMRC as the general public are.”
It’s one loose thread on a very shoddy jumper. See fuel bill allowances, subsidized lunches, and gawd knows how many other ways to raise total remuneration. If you want to have the same rules as taxpayers, I don’t object to that at all. Make it obvious what they’re actually paid, and make them plod through the forms and rules.
If you can get it enacted.
In the meantime, I’ll settle for a media that could actually interrogate. Suspect that applies more shame than a motion/bill/petition carefully bogged down in the encumbents’ bureaucracy. What rule allows this, why are the alternatives worse? What’s the limit on such donations, and will you defend those? For the opposition’s expenses?
Why are the people the PM’s wife is likely to meet that bitchy about appearances?
@ Afdolff
That is a lying rumour spread by the Labour press. It has been reported that Jacob Rees-Mogg submitted an invoice for various expenses including a duck-house to accompany a claim *that specifically excluded the duck-house from the amount claimed*.
A lie can circumnavigatye the earth before Truth gets his boots on.
The duck house (island really) claim was submitted by sir Peter Viggers.
The duck house (island really) claim was submitted by sir Peter Viggers.
You don’t have to be a cunt to get a knighthood, but 99% of them are.
llamas @ 9.33, not a typo, it’s an in joke between my mate and I.
John77 @ 11.20 & BiW@ 11.25, which anyone can check with a few mouse clicks on google, and which is exactly what I did before I posted it…………..
I know I can be thought a plum some times, so I do try to verify stuff before I remove all doubt by posting.
I see the Tories have made an official complaint to the standards commissioner. I reckon they’d be better off staying out of it because now Labour’s rebuttal machine, official and unofficial (Guardian & BBC), will just start pointing at them and muddying the waters and the MSM will lose interest and move on.
What is wrong with party donors, funding the expensive clothes, of the party leader, and his family if it makes the party leader and his family look more suitable for leadership? It is no different to giving funds for marketing for politicians.
I have no issue with the donors funding better marketing of Labour Party important figures. It is just marketing spending.
As long as it is declared, I have no issue.
Fred,
Not much, as long as its declared. What’s wrong is the rank hypocrisy on show and the incompetence after all those years in opposition, including receiving Short money, of not being ready for government and making mistakes like this.
If you pay politicians, you’ll get more politicians, doing more politics.
If you don’t pay politicians, there’ll be fewer of them, and with better things to do with their time. And they’re more likely to be public-spirited people of substance who’ve got something behind them (and something to lose) before they volunteer.
The separate argument that they need a clothing allowance so as not to embarrass us in front of foreigners? Who cares? Why would you care? That’s Ferdinand Marcos talking.
Fuck me.
‘Who cares? Why would you care?’
Deveril. Thanks for expressing my sentiments!!
Guido has some pictures. Seldom have I seen expensive clothes worn so badly.
– What is wrong with party donors, funding the expensive clothes, of the party leader, and his family if it makes the party leader and his family look more suitable for leadership?
What about handbags, jewellery, watches? Cars, private jet travel, holidays? Postman prat’s gotta look good.
For the country, you know.
What’s wrong with it? It is corruption.
@Deveril – “If you don’t pay politicians, there’ll be fewer of them, and with better things to do with their time. And they’re more likely to be public-spirited people of substance who’ve got something behind them”
They’ll be more motivated by a lust for power too. I’m not sure that’s such a good thing.
And bear in mind that, compared to the salary of a CEO of anequivalently large organisation, the PM’s salary is a pittance. Though, of course, no lefty can bear to criticise it for being so small as they’re already envious of it.
Lord Alli wants something. My guess is as good as yours but he expects to gain a favour: is he connected to some kind of clan society perhaps, relative needing a visa, healthcare or education in the UK. Unlikely looking at his bio, but has he fallen for a bloke 30 years younger a la Stephen Fry.
“Some day – and that day may never come – I’m going to call on you to do a service for me. But, in the meantime, accept this whistle . . . . .”
That’s what makes this so much worse than yer standard, venal quid-pro-quo. It’s that Starmer is now beholden at some level to Alli, for who-knows how long, and for who-knows what future ‘service’ he may be called upon to provide. All this talk about party supporters putting out their cash to make the leaders look suitably leader-ish is so much bullshit. When I was his age, making far less than he makes – all-found – I possessed or could afford an adequate wardrobe for everything from a shooting weekend to an embassy dinner. This has nothing to do with his official functions, it’s quite simply self-aggrandizement – flashy suits, better frocks than the other wives and designer gig-lamps. What a wretched, pitiful scrub he must be, to make himself beholden to such a man for such laughable trinkets.
llater,
llamas
Given the willingness of the Tories and supporters to defend far more egregious behaviour e.g. the Clown Prince and his cornucopia of grifts, it’s probably better if they don’t directly comment, let proxies like the Daily Wail (and other unreliable narrators) do the mud slinging. Although, I do think there are some people who are not so much selective when it comes to grift, as operating completely different standards. The current PM gets a few posh rags and it’s outrageous, but when the Clown Prince was showering in questionable money from all over the place they saw it as an endearing quirk. I find organisations like the Tax Payers’ Alliance do the same, they rage at petty bureaucrats in town halls wasting money but then tread lightly on eye watering levels of questionable public procurement done through the established networks that favour certain sectional interests (who may or may not be their donors). The grift that gets the attention is usually a rounding error on the grift that deliberately doesn’t get commented on.
@MJW
“It’s different when we do it.” The cry of the Left down the ages.
Personally I’m amazed that access to the PM of the country can be bought by such a small amount of money. If I chuck in a similar amount of dosh can I get a Downing St pass, and the ear of TTK too?
I mean its in the paper today that Kevin Pietersen was about to be blackballed from Sunningdale Golf Club, so withdrew his application. The signing on fee is apparently £90k+ which seems a lot to chase a white ball around the countryside. £20-30k to get the PM on side seems like a bargain by comparison. In fact its positively pound shop territory. A shocking indictment of the low standards of graft these days.
Famously, it cost £1 million to buy Tony Bliar (F1, Ecclestone).
How cheap we are nowadays.
Only £20k to buy TTK. Gosh, cheapskate!
@Tim the Coder
Some politicicans can be bought: others can only be rented.