The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Harpo]

The difference between Farage, the highest paid MP outside of Parliament according to the official register of interests, and Starmer is the level of media attention.

Both are supposedly within ‘the rules’ so neither is in any formal ‘trouble’.

The heart of the issue is how politics is funded and no party looks good on that score.

As for PM & MP’s pay, I’d happily seem them paid much more. £125k for the CEO of UK PLC is ridiculous. But, in exchange for better pay I’d want massive reductions in numbers, serious reforms to Westminster’s yah-boo adversarial nonsense and greater national strategic emphasis. But I can dream!

 

[nw1]

Ask yourself this: would you rather have a MP paid £90k a year with generous expenses, receives a multiple of their salary equivalent in gifts and has the ability to earn six figures in a 'side-job' that they dedicate more time for, or an MP on £150-200k a year, but receives no personal expenses (i.e. office staff and facilities' expenses remain) and is banned from both receiving gifts/donations and any other work while an MP?

I'd go for the more pay but ban donations option. Again perhaps not a popular view but a 6-figure salary seems not unreasonable for an MP, as long as they do a good job. (The only issue is that safe-seat MPs don't really need to bother pleasing their constituents or doing their bit to improve things because they know they will always get in - and thus they could end up getting a 6-figure salary for effectively doing just about nothing).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2024 ==

At the same time as all the Starmer gifts were widely reported, Jenrick accepted a £75k donation from a very suspiciously-opaque company, that is probably worse than anything Starmer did, but has received nowhere near the press coverage:

Indeed. Jenrick of course is someone who the Mail and Express are doubtless rooting for to become Leader of the Opposition, and hopefully PM one day too. So he can basically do what he likes.

 

[jfollows]

There's no way I'd do the job of an MP (properly) for the salary - £91,346 might sound like a lot but I was on about £80,000 in inflation-adjusted terms in 2008 for a job with about 25% of the effort. But every time there is a proposal to increase MP's salaries it tends to get knocked back for political reasons, however the salary has probably kept up with inflation for a while now at least.

So MPs don't do the job for the salary, they do it for other reasons - some good, some bad.

The "optics" of Kier Starmer and others accepting gifts is dreadful and they should have thought properly about it rather than saying "it's within the rules". The idea that I'd have allowed someone else to pay for my clothes when I was working is bonkers, and the idea that I'd have accepted gifts when I was a civil servant is doubly so - I just wouldn't have done so, it's clearly unacceptable for a public servant to do so.

But it's the Westminster bubble as always, they're cocooned inside it and stop understanding how real people think about them. It doesn't take long. That said, Labour is still significantly better than the Conservatives they replaced.

 

[Thirteen]

Honestly, given that two MPs have been murdered in the last 8 years. I'm surprised anyone wants to be a MP, the pay is just not enough for the amount of work and stress and that's just being a backbencher. I get the feeling some members of the public would want MPs not be paid at all or minimum wage but all that would do is attract people who are independently wealthy.

Uniforms payments are allowed in many businesses so getting clothes for free doesn't sound that bad in theory but it's the cost and brands that annoy people, I'm surprised brands know sizes unless they are supplied by the MP getting the donation.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Mail and Express continuing to rant on about Starmer (it's either winter fuel or some story involving an apartment paid for by a donor) while most of the other papers focus on the far more concerning latest threats from Netanyahu.

Yes, one of the main reasons I don't read them - Totally unbalanced. I think it is telling that Wikipedia flags cites/references from the Mail as not acceptable or unreliable.

Starmer has been PM for less than 3 months and imho needs to be given a reasonable chance first.

 

[Ghostbus]

Deleted

 

[takno]

You get the politicians you deserve. MPs of all stripes have been complaining for years that the pay is not high enough to attract serious talent, and the pipeline of PPE graduate to advisor to MP to minister has led to a complete and total detachment of the political class from the real world.

It's going to be the mark of.this parliament. So called working class parliamentarians being guilty of the same rank stupidity and dogmatic cruelty as any other career politician. It's taken mere weeks for it to manifest, and there is quite literally no sign that Kier Starmer even understands the problem.

The Guardian is running plenty of stories and columns in an attempt to get him to see it. It's not working. So here we are, in a bizzaro world where a woman columnist in Friday's Daily Mail (can't find a link atm) is able to make the case that the reason Kier is doing so poorly is because he's a privileged white man.

The Guardian seems to have completely lost the ability to control editorial.

It's been filling up for years with instant reaction stories written by third rate journalists, too many of which are based on a single anonymous source.

This used to at least be restricted to the politics section by editors, who recognised that credibility mattered and the headline stories had to exude it. Unfortunately the headlines themselves and the ordering of the stories on the homepage now seem to be either algorithmic or done by horrendously unqualified subeditors, possibly outside the UK.

The upshot is that it's now as much part of the avalanche of irrelevant rumour and innuendo which make the job of governing impossible. I know we guardian readers like to tut about the collapse of the Telegraph into a barely-credible grievance rag, but the Guardian isn't much better.

 

[Thirteen]

The Guardian has gone downhill in recent years.

 

[brad465]

Rosie Duffield has quit the party over the Starmer gift row. Certainly not a good look, but at the same time I'm surprised she lasted that long; in the previous parliament she made no secret of her troubled relationship with the party, including claims Starmer ignored her repeatedly on her safety concerns regarding her trans matter position, to the point there was at least one conference she didn't attend for concerns of her safety:

Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield says Keir Starmer's Labour cares more about greed and power

The Canterbury MP says she is leaving the party over the PM's "cruel" policies and "hypocrisy" at accepting gifts.

www.bbc.co.uk

MP Rosie Duffield says she is quitting Labour over leader Keir Starmer's "cruel" policies and "hypocrisy" over his acceptance of gifts.
In her resignation letter, published by the Sunday Times, external, the MP lambasts Sir Keir Starmer for the “staggering hypocrisy” of accepting gifts worth tens of thousands of pounds while scrapping the winter fuel payment and keeping the two-child benefit cap.
In the letter she said the “revelations of hypocrisy” since the change of government in July had been “staggering and increasingly outrageous”.
"I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear."
She added: "The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.”
The Sunday Times has called Duffield the fastest MP to jump ship after a general election in modern political history.

 

[alex397]

Rosie Duffield has quit the party over the Starmer gift row. Certainly not a good look, but at the same time I'm surprised she lasted that long; in the previous parliament she made no secret of her troubled relationship with the party, including claims Starmer ignored her repeatedly on her safety concerns regarding her trans matter position, to the point there was at least one conference she didn't attend for concerns of her safety:

Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield says Keir Starmer's Labour cares more about greed and power

The Canterbury MP says she is leaving the party over the PM's "cruel" policies and "hypocrisy" at accepting gifts.

www.bbc.co.uk

My local MP. While she has been good with correspondence from personal experience, I won’t be surprised if she defects to the Tories judging by some of her controversial statements and unwise use of Twitter/X.

There has also been a bit of ridicule recently of her refusal to attend a hustings for safety reasons (even though she could have attended virtually via the internet), but soon after attended a publicly advertised event in Whitstable with Feargal Sharkey. A good MP these days is hard to find…

 

[jon0844]

So now there are people on the right, including Katie Hopkins, suggesting the PM is secretly gay and if it came out, he'd have to resign.

I can see this one spreading quickly amongst the conspiracy theorists and other nutters, as they are probably of the opinion that someone being gay is news that would force someone to resign. It's like they're stuck in the last century.

Maybe Elon Musk will come and say something to further stir the pot.

Edit: I didn't realise Isabel Oakeshott also brought it up on Talk TV in a typical 'just asking questions' way. It's trending on X, surprise surprise, but I am not sure what they think the outcome would be. Nobody sane cares if someone is gay these days. They think saying someone is gay is an effective way to destroy them.

 

[alex397]

So now there are people on the right, including Katie Hopkins, suggesting the PM is secretly gay and if it came out, he'd have to resign.

People on the right having a problem with someone being potentially gay? What a shocker!

 

[Donny Dave]

I won’t be surprised if she defects to the Tories judging by some of her controversial statements and unwise use of Twitter/X.

Thanks but no thanks. Reform are welcome to her though.

 

[jon0844]

Thanks but no thanks. Reform are welcome to her though.

Another Liz Truss willing to sell her soul to the land of grifting? Lots of money by lurching to the right and repeating the usual right-wing talking points. But it's a pretty competitive space and it always ends up turning nasty as everyone turns on each other.

 

[Gloster]

I am thoroughly unimpressed by the various freebies accepted by a number of Labour figures, even if they are small beer by Conservative standards. However, they should not have accepted them, although I might allow the loan of a flat for Starmer Junior to do his GCSEs in. However, this resignation does have a feeling of playing to the gallery for future advantage: only a couple of months in and you feel so angry about something that you are resigning from the ticket that your voters voted you in on. Being publicly angry and risking the wrath of the Whips is one thing, but departing so soon…

 

[Acfb]

I am thoroughly unimpressed by the various freebies accepted by a number of Labour figures, even if they are small beer by Conservative standards. However, they should not have accepted them, although I might allow the loan of a flat for Starmer Junior to do his GCSEs in. However, this resignation does have a feeling of playing to the gallery for future advantage: only a couple of months in and you feel so angry about something that you are resigning from the ticket that your voters voted you in on. Being publicly angry and risking the wrath of the Whips is one thing, but departing so soon…

This has been coming for years (she had a more convenient smokescreen under Corbyn) and ironically could help reunite the Labour Party behind Starmer. Even Dan Hodges is rightly questioning why she stood as an MP in 2024.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don’t take Katie Hopkins seriously- so her opinion does not count as far as I am concerned.

 

[dgl]

People on the right having a problem with someone being potentially gay? What a shocker!

Yet the right have a habit of fawning over men, methinks some people like to deflect away from what they really are (just think of Trump or Farage being a gay love icon to some right wingers, just eww).

 

[AlterEgo]

Good riddance to bad rubbish when it comes to Duffield. A foul bigot.

 

[jon0844]

I don’t take Katie Hopkins seriously- so her opinion does count as far as I am concerned.

As I added later to my post, it was being discussed by Isabel Oakeshott on Talk TV and I think she might have been the person who first started 'asking questions'.

Given her relationship to Reform, I think it is rather more political than Hate-y Hopkins who is just trolling at this point.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I edited my post. I do NOT take Katie Hopkins seriously.

 

[GusB]

I don’t take Katie Hopkins seriously- so her opinion does not count as far as I am concerned.

I didn't realise that Hatey Hopkins was still a thing. When did it crawl back out from under its rock?

Yet the right have a habit of fawning over men, methinks some people like to deflect away from what they really are (just think of Trump or Farage being a gay love icon to some right wingers, just eww).

"Eww" is the correct reaction!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The difference between Farage, the highest paid MP outside of Parliament according to the official register of interests, and Starmer is the level of media attention.

Both are supposedly within ‘the rules’ so neither is in any formal ‘trouble’.

The heart of the issue is how politics is funded and no party looks good on that score.

As for PM & MP’s pay, I’d happily seem them paid much more. £125k for the CEO of UK PLC is ridiculous. But, in exchange for better pay I’d want massive reductions in numbers, serious reforms to Westminster’s yah-boo adversarial nonsense and greater national strategic emphasis. But I can dream!

My thought exactly

 

[Falcon1200]

although I might allow the loan of a flat for Starmer Junior to do his GCSEs in.

Accepting money from a rich(er) man to buy Starmer's clothes and glasses, not to mention clothes for his wife, was bad enough; Could the Starmers really not afford those themselves?; But flatgate was even worse! Every parent wants to give their children the best chances in life, but this is the same Starmer who, by imposing VAT on private school fees, is hampering, if not preventing, the ability of other parents to do the same. That is utter, absolute stinking hypocrisy.

(And of course, just as with the Winter Fuel Allowance, the really rich won't even notice VAT on school fees)

 

[JonathanH]

Every parent wants to give their children the best chances in life, but this is the same Starmer who, by imposing VAT on private school fees, is hampering, if not preventing, the ability of other parents to do the same.

The stated objective is to provide more money to the state system, improving the chances of children who don't attend private schools. A private school is a business, and making the cost subject to VAT just brings that business's charges into line with other businesses.

Tax is a very fine line. The government needs a lot more of it to fund what it wants to achieve, and no obvious way to obtain lots of it having ruled out increases in income based taxes.

 

[SteveP29]

worsening tax rises, this 'black hole' should surely be fixed by now. Is this something that actually matters, or just another excuse for another burden on the cost of living crisis?

Forgive my ignorance, but what tax rises have been confirmed by this Government?

 

[JamesT]

The stated objective is to provide more money to the state system, improving the chances of children who don't attend private schools. A private school is a business, and making the cost subject to VAT just brings that business's charges into line with other businesses.

Tax is a very fine line. The government needs a lot more of it to fund what it wants to achieve, and no obvious way to obtain lots of it having ruled out increases in income based taxes.

Providing education has a long standing history of being considered a charitable purpose rather than a business hence the tax exemptions.

The interesting question is how many families will be able to afford the increased fees. If it’s too many then the policy will raise no net revenue and even potentially cost the government money as those children would enter the state system.

 

[takno]

Providing education has a long standing history of being considered a charitable purpose rather than a business hence the tax exemptions.

The interesting question is how many families will be able to afford the increased fees. If it’s too many then the policy will raise no net revenue and even potentially cost the government money as those children would enter the state system.

It has a long history of such, but the actual implementation of that has been patchy at best. In any case, the value of it as a charitable sector in a country with universal free education is rather limited, and in the past 20 years at least the sector has been about as charitable as Open AI is non-profit.

Given that the VAT can in many cases be netted off against costs, the necessary price rises are likely to be around 10%. Long and short of it is that it's unlikely to drive a particularly significant number of children into the state sector, and enormously unlikely to be revenue negative. Personally I'd be a lot more worried about the non-dom stuff being net negative.

 

[Ghostbus]

The VAT on schools issue is a perfect example of where Starmer is getting it so wrong, absolutely squandering his massive windfall and political headwind, feeding the growing narrative that he is cruel, hypocritical and detached from reality.

He knows fine well that some pupils are going to be withdrawn due to this policy, and he knows fine well not all private schools are leafy mansions in the home counties, with the state sector lacking the places to take them. But his response to that specific problem has been poor.

There is a massive private school near me that you wouldn't even know was a private school, it looks like any other comprehensive. It takes thousands of pupils from miles around, aged 3 to 16, on a day basis only. It looks positively down at heel compared to some Academies.

It's pretty clear that they have a tight budget and focus all their energy on the essentials of education - staff, equipment and the curriculum. I could certainly afford their pretty reasonable fees with a few sacrifices, and I'm most assuredly one of Starmer's working class heros.

This school has already warned parents that they were taken by surprise with the haste of this announcement, and lacking any real indication the consultation will alter it significantly, they have made it clear that they should expect the full charge to be passed onto them in January. Parents won't even know for sure until the October budget. Ridiculous.

Who is going to get all the flack for this debacle, if as it appears, it brings immediate issues for state schools for miles around in January? The Labour MPs who represent this region, some of whom are on wafer thin majorities. His own chancellor and education secretary are in seats a comfortable drive from this school.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility, if facing a future of managed decline until inevitable closure, a cycle set in motion by this policy of decreasing revenue and decreasing attainment, the school could just decide to close and cash in on the land value. It's got to be sitting on billions, given its location.

How ironic to think that the only reason it wouldn't do that, is their unwillingness to cause unbelievable stress to parents and a massive burden to the state. That's probably why these things should be seen as charities, not businesses. Because the likes of Amazon or Facebook certainly wouldn't think twice about closing it pretty quickly in that situation.

 

[nw1]

My local MP. While she has been good with correspondence from personal experience, I won’t be surprised if she defects to the Tories judging by some of her controversial statements and unwise use of Twitter/X.

I think she's too liberal for the Tories, at least in their current form. Very pro-EU, if I remember right, for example and more left-wing than Labour on some issues like the winter fuel payments and two-child cap.

Rather questionable views on trans issues, though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2024 ==

Thanks but no thanks. Reform are welcome to her though.

Even less likely than a defection to the current version of the Tories!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2024 ==

The VAT on schools issue is a perfect example of where Starmer is getting it so wrong, absolutely squandering his massive windfall and political headwind, feeding the growing narrative that he is cruel, hypocritical and detached from reality.

I think we need to be careful about the alternative. I too am not so impressed by some recent moves by Labour but think about it - the alternative at the next election is likely to be Jenrick or Badenoch, or even Farage, as PM.

I suspect that, perhaps rather like 2015 following five years of the rather unpopular Cameron-Osborne government, they will get back in again (or at least I hope they will) next time, due to the perceived unpalability of the alternative - unless the Tories gain a more reasonable leader such as Tugendhat. In some ways I think they blew it by Hunt not entering the leadership race, as (though I am not a fan of his) I think he could have had election-winning potential, being the sort of moderate Tory with experience who would appeal to the blue wall.

Still not good though. I'd like to see more focus on optimism and more left-leaning, liberal policies. Say what you like about Blair, at least his government had a positive vision in the early years.

It's going to be a strange few years - both major parties likely to be distinctly unpopular, and none providing the vision that the country really needs. And the last five years have been distinctly strange too. Just hope this isn't breeding ground for a government involving Reform in some shape or form next time (for example a coalition of Reform and a Jenrick- or Badenoch-led Tories).