Biggest problem for Starmer & Labour is political journalists have made a living of Tory drama, making money of multiple podcast a week. The drama gone now so, Starmer taking his 14 year daughter to Taylor Swift is an outrage. Political journalist that get free food and drink paid for by party donors every week at events.
Or, could it be that Starmer is a filthy hypocrite? He made a big deal of "Tory sleaze" as opposition leader, but it turns out he's just as sleazy. For some reason, he doesn't want to be judged by his own standards.
I think there is something dramatic about taking thousands of pounds worth of tickets/goods while letting pensioners go without and warning constantly of a painful budget to come.
@@empeming the poorest pensioners still get winter fuel credit. Pensioners like my parents that have had 3 foreign holidays this year won’t. Some people need to grow up.
@nicksimmons7234 even if what you say is true and the implementation is perfect - the reaction is labour parties own fault for not supporting it properly in a package of wider changes. They enabled the conversation to be all about one policy and when they campaigned on honesty and representing "hard working families" yes they will be held to a high standard.
Perhaps by living in the same world as the rest of us, rather than freebie land. Politicians would actually start to experience how most live and then govern more effectively.
If they are going to survive in government labour need to be extra squeaky clean and savvy. The rules are not something the great British public are aware of in depth. Headlines are all that count anymore sadly…so button up Labour!
Since they chose to present themselves pre - election as a shower of sanctimonious ,self righteous virtue signallers more concerned about Boris wallpaper etc then they deserve all.they get..!!
I work in a Post Office and we have rules on customers giving us gifts because of the conflict of interest as we sell financial products and handle peoples data etc. But if you’re running the country it’s supposed to not matter? I earn a pittance but have to buy my own clothes so why can’t a top 1% earning politician?
Well then they need to apply rules over donations consistently. The press also needs to respond consistently, not turn a blind eye when the Tories are in government and cry havoc when anyone else is in charge
Thats a good point about Starmer needing to look smart. Can I just say though that many years ago a clothing allowance was given to many people for work clothes along with some help with transport costs, especially when travel was essential to do the job. Over the years though, wages reduced, bills increased and all work expence support withdrawn.When someone gets a job these days there is often a cost upfront before wages are paid. Car, petrol, tax and insurance, plus dress code expenses. It is unfair for people on far more than 100 grand to also get expences and gifts, especially such extravagant ones, when life becomes more squeezed for many people struggling.
Every time I hear anything about "poor politician needs money" I have to roll my eyes... MPs earn near TRIPLE the national average salary, thats assuming they only earn income from that, not including they have their expenses paid for and ignoring the fact many people earn alot less than the national average without working long hours!
To be fair - we expect newly elected MPs to abandon their previous careers and incomes, when who knows they could be out of a job only a few years later. For most people, especially given the horrendous stress and even risk to mental health and life of being an MP, the job would hold no attraction whatsoever. I think much hypocrisy in all this banging on about how awful MPs are. Most people would accept freebies of course. And plenty do. Perhaps we need to be generally a bit more honest about this.
Around 25 years ago a movement sprung up in NHS hospitals called No Free Lunch. Essentially consultants signed this pledge and declined even so much as a sandwich from pharmaceutical companies who frequently sponsored academic meetings. Politicians would be wise to do the same.
If the PM requires a 'Clobber Allowance' then it should be a part of the office support. Not provided by grasping donors by by the state, and let it be open to questioning by the media and everyone else.
I simply dont accept the point that politicians need freebies to dress well. I bought my first tailored suit aged 28 when I earned considerably less than MPs, let alone Starmer who reported a tax return of over 400k last year.
Exactly, I had to dress well for my job from when I was a graduate. Not only did I not get them for free, I had to pay tax on the money I earnt to buy them
@@urbanspaceman1 I had to wear them everyday, for long days, so I needed at least the same number he does - nobody needs 50+ suits for work unless there's a national shortage of drycleaners all of a sudden
No surprise everything is going to crap when the media concentrates on non issues, thus taking the the issues of actually Governing the country almost like an afterthought. I am getting sick and tired of the media concentrating on click baiting rather than true journalism. That's putting it mildly.
@mikedonovan4768 It does look like an own goal though.Starmer always knew that the right wing press would eventually go for him. And, they are always looking for these stories, rather than being real journalists. The public see the taking of gifts as a big indication that Labour MPs are like the last lot, greedy and self interested. Not trustworthy.
100% this. The right wing media were never questioning the Tories donations on the same level when then were in power, and that's because their problems were orders of magnitudes greater like giving millions to their friends in contracts. But hey im gonna winge about the Taylor swift tickets.
I agree 100%. But Labour in opposition were obsessed with trivia like Boris wallpaper , expenses / holidays etc they were bound to end up where they are. Sanctimony is NOT a sustainable political strategy..!!
After the way Labour attacked the Tories stating rules and regulations they can't have any excuses! As for the WFPs, pensioners were an easy target because they don't have union reps, they can't go on strike and they can't cause disruption! But to do that, remove bus passes and council tax discount along with increased energy prices and the proposed added increase in council tax, the pensioners are being totally shafted but politicians are taking freebies left, right and centre, certain groups receiving massive pay rises just adds insult to injury! These people worked to help build a great country just to see consecutive governments destroy what was built! Absolutely unbelievable and unforgivable!
Marr seems to get it. Eaton still seems to mix up donations to political parties and donations to individuals. Freebies to an individual are not the same as donations to a party. Most of us don't mind donations to parties, I imagine very few of us are happy with donations given to individual politicians.
_I_ object to 'donations' setting the direction of parties! Especially as they're much more difficult to find on the Electoral Commission website than personal ones on Parliament's website.
They earn a fortune compared to most people and begrudge pensioners £300 single payment. No reason whatsoever for an MP or PM to receive personal gifts...bribery by any other name
It wasn't 6k it was 32k for his clothes, the 6k was taylor swift tickets. £130 is definitely too little for a decent suit but that doesn't mean he needs to spend tens of thousands
@@PJH13 I just got a great made-to-measure suit, Italian premium fabric for 2 grand (USD). One of those for every day of the week would come in under 14.
My salary and social status is certainly below that of UK prime minister and I have bought clothes more upmarket than the finest line in M&S. However of course I spent my own hard earned money for them.
Commonsense please. Give the PM & wife an allowance for clothes attending official functions. Like some firms who give uniforms to staff for work. If no members of Parliament are allowed to have gifts & donations, can't be accused of bribery & corruption then. In Singapore, a minister has been sentenced this week for accepting gifts etc
Nurses get free uniforms,and some firms like M&S John Lewis,Harrods and even Wimbledon give us freebies and tickets,so I damn fed up with these hostile media and journalists who I call parasites who should find a decent job.instead of, certain trying to rule the country , certain morning channels are a damn disgrace, providing you with hostile questioning accompanying with laughing hyenas.We are coming a third class country.
I don’t think the maths quite shakes out there. £100k is about 70k after tax. A half decent shirt is £50 but realistically if he has to measure up to politicians internationally I’d say £100-200 per shirt is more likely (you can argue he should make do with cheap stuff but be realistic, he’s a world leader). So that’s between £5k-10k on shirts, that’s between 7-14% of his take home just on shirts. And that’s ignoring all other clothing expenses, and all other on-the-job personal expenses. Frankly the more reasonable argument is does he need 50? But if, for whatever reason, he does need 50, then yeah that is not affordable even on £100k a year.
@@rand0mati0n A quick search on how much Kier earns shows a Guardian article that shows he earned over 300k after tax last year. So yeah, I think he can afford 5-10k on shirts. And what the hell is the labour party paying him 40k a year for if he isn't using that money for this?
@@rodd1000 not to be pedantic on the internet, but in for a penny in for a pound: “£100k+” isn’t correct if the argument doesn’t apply to 100k and anything above. “£100k+” implies it is affordable at any level above 100k, including say, £100,001. Just because there is a level somewhere above 100k at which it is affordable, doesn’t mean any figure above 100k is affordable. If the shirts become affordable at say 120k, ie 120k is the minimum wage at which they are affordable, then the correct way to write it would be “£120k+” because the bottom of the affordable range is 120k. My point being, £100k, and many figures above 100k (which fall under the definition of “£100k+”), are still not high enough to afford that many high-quality shirts. There’s really no need to be defensive, I’d much rather hear your actual views on what is and isn’t affordable, and why. Another comment said his salary was actually something like £300k, maybe that’s enough for it to be affordable. But you’d be surprised how little £120k is these days.
@@adam7802 just googled - if we’re talking about the guardian article - that figure apparently includes £275k from selling a field he owned. While that is significant, it’s not something that’s repeatable (unless he owns more fields I guess). The salary component was about £130k, which includes MP salary, plus the 50k leadership salary you mentioned. This was when he was still opposition leader though, so the salary may have gone up since then. Do you feel he should pay more himself because he had pre-existing wealth from his time as a lawyer? How do you feel about donations in general in our politics?
Really interesting, as usual! Thank you NS. We await Rachel Reeves' Autumn Statement with bated breath! At present my opinion of Rachel Reeves couldn't be lower. I never thought I'd say this but I think they rather desperately need a spin doctor, a modern version of Alistair Campbell. I confess to having been so snooty about spin doctors in the past but the silly mess Starmer/Reeves has allowed to occur calls out for a Firm Hand. Paradoxically, that very Firm Hand probably already exists in the form of Sue Gray but her remit seems to be entirely internal. They need an outward looking Sue Gray or equivalent.
It's simple, honesty, integrity & telling the truth is & has been absent from politics for over 25yrs. Infered or direct influence by those who have money to splash is undemocratic.
The real question to which I can’t get an answer is why is no-one discussing the £900k he received in donations, of which the £105k publicised everywhere is simply a tiny drop. Moreover what did he use it for. We know , up to a point, who is giving the money. The question is what access does it give and how much influence that gives them.
Why is absolutely noone suggesting that donations personal or to the party are just unacceptable unless they are small. You have to be mad to think that a donation of millions to the party or thousands to an MP doesn't come with strings even if they're not explicitly identified
Civil Servants sometimes work around politicians. They are banned from taking gifts unless refusal would create offence and are particularly restricted if the value is more than £10. That figure has not been increased for 40 years. Politicians can do the same if they wish and it would be a good thing if they did.
4:17 they didn't do *_ANY_* impact assessment, that's a big part of the problem! If they *_had_* done impact assessments they would have discovered that the existing system was the cheapest option, cheaper even than withdrawing it completely because of the knock-on expenses in the NHS etc. The proposed means testing is probably the *MOST* expensive option & will swallow any 'savings' many times over even before the NHS bill comes through. 😮
@@alanhat5252 I agree it was clueless. I’ve seen a suggestion the Treasury bundled her into this panic measure when the Black Hole was revealed. I don’t really buy this. Firstly, I can’t believe the so-called Black Hole could ever have been a surprise. But mainly, I think she was totally blinkered: she just saw Tory voting pensioners and she was going to teach them a nasty lesson! Pure vindictiveness allied with utter lack of political nous.
I agree that too much is made of teh Labour donor issue. But why would Starmer need 50 shirts? Especially shirts that are worn inside a suit. Even then, can't he afford a washing service in N10?
Has anyone asked to see the receipts? How do we know all the money went on just clothes or glasses? And, why couldn't the money have gone direct to the Labour party so they could fund the clothes?
It’s time someone said that. There used to be an understanding that offsetting a comparatively low salary, therevwould be quite generous benefits, such as various expense allowances. These people are expected to be on duty 24x7. We’ll get what we pay for.
Hold them to the same standards as lawyers and accountants. Have a look at the guidance for the proceeds of crime act and the bribery act. A lot of what goes on would be illegal for most people in most professions.
2:02 ".....50 shirts cost a bit so I do understand.... Are you taking the piss Marr ? The man's worth millions, I'm sure he can put his hands on a couple of grand or so for a new wardrobe of shirts. Same kind of tossers as the last lot.
I think it is quite easy to see why Labour are not being seen as radical. We have a public sector funding crises. Labour has ruled out tax increases from the main sources and so they have boxed themselves in, being forced to go down the road of austerity. Of course I understand that it is hard to advocate tax increases during the cost of living crises and it would have been harder to win the general election if the Tories were going to capitalise on that. It is also hard to increase borrowing when interest rates are so high (although they are coming down, so that could change). There appear to be no good choices and that is how it is.
An underappreciated aspect of the renationalization of the Water and Railway companies and the creation of GB Energy is the capital expenditures that they will expend each year. This will amount to billions each year and over a term potentially tens of billions. Will the government preference local suppliers or have domestic content requirements? Breakfast clubs in school could boost attendance and grades but they need to connect that to the local MP. Any improvements could be evident well before the next election and would be useful in upcoming council elections.
And it wasn't a donkey jacket. The Queen Mother complimented Footy for wearing a practical overcoat for a Remembrance Sunday plagued with bad weather. It was the lying MSM that referred to a donkey jacket.
Those people suggesting here that Boris Johnson was worse than Starmer are themselves deluded and have dual standards. Not unlike two tier, free gear Starmer.
In opposition they were terrified of seeming to radical. No reason why that will stop in government. They will be doing their upmost for radical to seek boring.
It's important to also point our how extreme the current goverment support for Israel is. Supporting a genosidal state like that goes against to our own law and history. Starmer is very extreme.
“Hasn’t got a big private income of his own..” Are you honestly trying to spin that 170k a year isn’t enough money to afford 50 shirts? You know they sell them in multipacks? Pull the other one Andrew.
I admire his optimism. In a way, he's like Polly Toynbee, another eternal optimist who first said that Labour would abolish the 2 child benefit cap in the autumn, but can only now hope they will. There's nothing I've heard that suggests radicalism when Labour have unashamedly wedded themselves to being the Tory austerity continuity project.
JCB Lord Anthony Bamford, paid for Johnson and Brexit for their own narrow interests, and against the interests of the populace as a whole, this is why it matters who is paying the piper for it is they who are calling the tune, while avoiding tax that we all pay by using the Caymans, the poorest pay and get no play Starmer has shown he is no better than Johnson
Radical. Scandalous is what is. This Marr character is very apologetic for Starmer but he knows this man is deeply flawed. What about the remainder, which Marr didn’t even address, and what about his Ministers giving their bungs back.
Both the free shirt+specs and mp's expenses 'scandals' have come at the exact same time as: a.) the investigation into the covid fast lane contracts b.) the fallout from the 2008 financial crash crimes Interesting.
Lets be fair, Let's ban all donations above 200k quid with a maximum of a million a year from all sources, averaged over five years. Those who are not ministers (or on the 'payroll' as they say in SW1) can get half of that. No declarations needed, but accounts kept secure in each office. I'm erring on the low side, but thems the breeks.
Better to ban all donations to individuals, and have a maximum of 5 million for the party over the 5 years, so 1 mil per year to cover everything for all party members. Anything after that they cover themselves.
And how do you know what is valid in my world? How do you know what is valid to the millions of people you don't know? In short, you speak for yourself and nobody else.
People get mad about the Taylor swift thing like its a huge scandal but lets be objective, its nothing compared to all helicopters Rishy took, the flats Boris had renovated and all the crook PPE contracts. - I think we need some perspective
The comparison you make is not really valid, it is wrong regardless of the extent of the 'donation'. Labour claimed it would govern differently, they seem to be , within a matter of weeks, to have forgotten their principles.
@@ssocialdrummer I mean, it is different. What Starmer did wasn't against the rules, but much of what Boris did absolutely was and yet didn't get a fraction of the traction this has. It's utterly ridiculous and anyone who is getting angry at Labour right now but not at the tories is an absolute tool.
What a smug bunch of middle class nonces. Marr defending snouts in the trough when it's obvious to any clear thinking people, that gifts should be banned completely. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I’d like state funding of political parties. Look it would dirt everything out. It’s what the Germans do. No interested parties or companies or trade unions are permitted to fund political parties or individuals.
Correction: Labour is more radical/extreme than the new statesman and middle class urban liberals realised. The rest of us warned you & got laughed at and mocked as racist/far right/stupid etc
Johnson's clothes would have been new, often quite expensive, and likely 'gifted', I suspect - as we know, his 'sloppy' image has always been contrived. In the background, it's always been about what he can take from others.
What short memories you have on the subject of how politicians dress, I seem to recall Michael Foot being mauled as Labour leader for his jacket at a Remembrance Day Parade. Also Sloppy BJ the sex yeti may not have been well dressed (or studiously made sure he didn't appear like it) but he had the Downing Street flat redecorated for free with a donor footing the bill amongst other things.
Parties should pay for their own campaigns..... it might require them to recruit.... Heaven forfend! Actually recruit members? No, members are not required. Shirts for work are a tax deduction.... what a lame excuse. 6000.00 quid was not all he grifted.
There nothing radical about labour under keir starmer. Like someone famously said about keir is the same bottom as the Conservatives , just a different cheek.
Don’t think Marr still gets it - normal people have to buy their own suits! Also the team seem to be avoiding the fact the wfp cut is predicted to kill 4,000 pensioners, it’s sickening and should be the focus not this tosh
4000 pensioners my arse. When I was a boy no one had central heating at all, we had a paraffin heater in the lounge. No one died. I would wake up and there would be ice inside the bedroom windows. None of my family froze to death. Its nonsense.
Biggest problem for Starmer & Labour is political journalists have made a living of Tory drama, making money of multiple podcast a week.
The drama gone now so, Starmer taking his 14 year daughter to Taylor Swift is an outrage.
Political journalist that get free food and drink paid for by party donors every week at events.
Or, could it be that Starmer is a filthy hypocrite? He made a big deal of "Tory sleaze" as opposition leader, but it turns out he's just as sleazy. For some reason, he doesn't want to be judged by his own standards.
Bang on. Political commentators and journalist have widely failed in their duty to the public.
I think there is something dramatic about taking thousands of pounds worth of tickets/goods while letting pensioners go without and warning constantly of a painful budget to come.
@@empeming the poorest pensioners still get winter fuel credit. Pensioners like my parents that have had 3 foreign holidays this year won’t.
Some people need to grow up.
@nicksimmons7234 even if what you say is true and the implementation is perfect - the reaction is labour parties own fault for not supporting it properly in a package of wider changes.
They enabled the conversation to be all about one policy and when they campaigned on honesty and representing "hard working families" yes they will be held to a high standard.
Perhaps by living in the same world as the rest of us, rather than freebie land. Politicians would actually start to experience how most live and then govern more effectively.
If they are going to survive in government labour need to be extra squeaky clean and savvy. The rules are not something the great British public are aware of in depth. Headlines are all that count anymore sadly…so button up Labour!
Starmer openly states he wants brutish women terrified. He can sue me
It's too late, they already showed their true colours.
@@hughjohns9110True colours?
@@davidgray1236 yes, they are no different from the previous mob. Is it a bit too tricky for you to grasp or do you just not want to grasp it.
Since they chose to present themselves
pre - election as a shower of sanctimonious ,self righteous virtue signallers more concerned about Boris wallpaper etc then they deserve all.they get..!!
I work in a Post Office and we have rules on customers giving us gifts because of the conflict of interest as we sell financial products and handle peoples data etc. But if you’re running the country it’s supposed to not matter? I earn a pittance but have to buy my own clothes so why can’t a top 1% earning politician?
Well then they need to apply rules over donations consistently. The press also needs to respond consistently, not turn a blind eye when the Tories are in government and cry havoc when anyone else is in charge
Thats a good point about Starmer needing to look smart. Can I just say though that many years ago a clothing allowance was given to many people for work clothes along with some help with transport costs, especially when travel was essential to do the job. Over the years though, wages reduced, bills increased and all work expence support withdrawn.When someone gets a job these days there is often a cost upfront before wages are paid. Car, petrol, tax and insurance, plus dress code expenses.
It is unfair for people on far more than 100 grand to also get expences and gifts, especially such extravagant ones, when life becomes more squeezed for many people struggling.
Im sure he could have got a carer development loan given he has recently secured a salary for life.
Gifts , donations . Bribes .
From someone that’s already a peer!
Grow up.
Spot on. Buying power
Every time I hear anything about "poor politician needs money" I have to roll my eyes... MPs earn near TRIPLE the national average salary, thats assuming they only earn income from that, not including they have their expenses paid for and ignoring the fact many people earn alot less than the national average without working long hours!
They work long hours and if we wanted competent people they need to be paid more. Let’s just have fewer of them and pay more.
To be fair - we expect newly elected MPs to abandon their previous careers and incomes, when who knows they could be out of a job only a few years later. For most people, especially given the horrendous stress and even risk to mental health and life of being an MP, the job would hold no attraction whatsoever. I think much hypocrisy in all this banging on about how awful MPs are. Most people would accept freebies of course. And plenty do. Perhaps we need to be generally a bit more honest about this.
Around 25 years ago a movement sprung up in NHS hospitals called No Free Lunch. Essentially consultants signed this pledge and declined even so much as a sandwich from pharmaceutical companies who frequently sponsored academic meetings. Politicians would be wise to do the same.
There is a fund. It's called his salary.
It should be bigger.
If the PM requires a 'Clobber Allowance' then it should be a part of the office support. Not provided by grasping donors by by the state, and let it be open to questioning by the media and everyone else.
I simply dont accept the point that politicians need freebies to dress well. I bought my first tailored suit aged 28 when I earned considerably less than MPs, let alone Starmer who reported a tax return of over 400k last year.
Exactly, I had to dress well for my job from when I was a graduate. Not only did I not get them for free, I had to pay tax on the money I earnt to buy them
@@PJH13 Did you have to buy 50+ suits though?
@@urbanspaceman1 You dont need 50 suits. 50 shirts maybe, but even then you can buy them yourself
@@urbanspaceman1 I had to wear them everyday, for long days, so I needed at least the same number he does - nobody needs 50+ suits for work unless there's a national shortage of drycleaners all of a sudden
@@PJH13 are you having the scrutiny of the national media on you 24/7 though?
No surprise everything is going to crap when the media concentrates on non issues, thus taking the the issues of actually Governing the country almost like an afterthought. I am getting sick and tired of the media concentrating on click baiting rather than true journalism. That's putting it mildly.
Rubbish. The Labour government is not governing the country. They just spout woffle and bullshit
Not to mention the non stop pessimism and negativity, everything is bad and there is nothing good
@mikedonovan4768 It does look like an own goal though.Starmer always knew that the right wing press would eventually go for him. And, they are always looking for these stories, rather than being real journalists.
The public see the taking of gifts as a big indication that Labour MPs are like the last lot, greedy and self interested. Not trustworthy.
100% this. The right wing media were never questioning the Tories donations on the same level when then were in power, and that's because their problems were orders of magnitudes greater like giving millions to their friends in contracts. But hey im gonna winge about the Taylor swift tickets.
I agree 100%. But Labour in opposition were
obsessed with trivia like Boris wallpaper ,
expenses / holidays etc they were bound to
end up where they are. Sanctimony is NOT a sustainable political strategy..!!
Labour radical? : the Workers rights and changes don't come in for 2 years Radical would be to uproot the bureaucracy
Starmer got used to the media giving him a free ride and Ali did pay cash for access to number 10 along with a say in who the candidates were.
spot on
After the way Labour attacked the Tories stating rules and regulations they can't have any excuses! As for the WFPs, pensioners were an easy target because they don't have union reps, they can't go on strike and they can't cause disruption! But to do that, remove bus passes and council tax discount along with increased energy prices and the proposed added increase in council tax, the pensioners are being totally shafted but politicians are taking freebies left, right and centre, certain groups receiving massive pay rises just adds insult to injury! These people worked to help build a great country just to see consecutive governments destroy what was built! Absolutely unbelievable and unforgivable!
Marr seems to get it. Eaton still seems to mix up donations to political parties and donations to individuals. Freebies to an individual are not the same as donations to a party. Most of us don't mind donations to parties, I imagine very few of us are happy with donations given to individual politicians.
_I_ object to 'donations' setting the direction of parties! Especially as they're much more difficult to find on the Electoral Commission website than personal ones on Parliament's website.
They earn a fortune compared to most people and begrudge pensioners £300 single payment. No reason whatsoever for an MP or PM to receive personal gifts...bribery by any other name
M&S White shirt 3 pack: £45
50 Shirts 50x15 = £750.
M&S slim-fit suit (not for me!) £130
10 Suits £1300
Total £2050.
How did it get to £6000 ?
It wasn't 6k it was 32k for his clothes, the 6k was taylor swift tickets. £130 is definitely too little for a decent suit but that doesn't mean he needs to spend tens of thousands
@@PJH13 I just got a great made-to-measure suit, Italian premium fabric for 2 grand (USD). One of those for every day of the week would come in under 14.
@@PJH13he didn't his master bought them for him.
My salary and social status is certainly below that of UK prime minister and I have bought clothes more upmarket than the finest line in M&S. However of course I spent my own hard earned money for them.
M&S is cheap compared to many tailored options
Commonsense please. Give the PM & wife an allowance for clothes attending official functions. Like some firms who give uniforms to staff for work.
If no members of Parliament are allowed to have gifts & donations, can't be accused of bribery & corruption then.
In Singapore, a minister has been sentenced this week for accepting gifts etc
Nurses get free uniforms,and some firms like M&S John Lewis,Harrods and even Wimbledon give us freebies and tickets,so I damn fed up with these hostile media and journalists who I call parasites who should find a decent job.instead of, certain trying to rule the country , certain morning channels are a damn disgrace, providing you with hostile questioning accompanying with laughing hyenas.We are coming a third class country.
If you can’t afford fifty shirts on 100k+ a year there’s something wrong. And there is.
I don’t think the maths quite shakes out there.
£100k is about 70k after tax. A half decent shirt is £50 but realistically if he has to measure up to politicians internationally I’d say £100-200 per shirt is more likely (you can argue he should make do with cheap stuff but be realistic, he’s a world leader).
So that’s between £5k-10k on shirts, that’s between 7-14% of his take home just on shirts. And that’s ignoring all other clothing expenses, and all other on-the-job personal expenses.
Frankly the more reasonable argument is does he need 50? But if, for whatever reason, he does need 50, then yeah that is not affordable even on £100k a year.
@@rand0mati0n A quick search on how much Kier earns shows a Guardian article that shows he earned over 300k after tax last year. So yeah, I think he can afford 5-10k on shirts. And what the hell is the labour party paying him 40k a year for if he isn't using that money for this?
@@rand0mati0n I can see that you don’t read very well. I said, 100k plus. The later being the operative word. Dodo.
@@rodd1000 not to be pedantic on the internet, but in for a penny in for a pound: “£100k+” isn’t correct if the argument doesn’t apply to 100k and anything above. “£100k+” implies it is affordable at any level above 100k, including say, £100,001.
Just because there is a level somewhere above 100k at which it is affordable, doesn’t mean any figure above 100k is affordable.
If the shirts become affordable at say 120k, ie 120k is the minimum wage at which they are affordable, then the correct way to write it would be “£120k+” because the bottom of the affordable range is 120k.
My point being, £100k, and many figures above 100k (which fall under the definition of “£100k+”), are still not high enough to afford that many high-quality shirts.
There’s really no need to be defensive, I’d much rather hear your actual views on what is and isn’t affordable, and why.
Another comment said his salary was actually something like £300k, maybe that’s enough for it to be affordable. But you’d be surprised how little £120k is these days.
@@adam7802 just googled - if we’re talking about the guardian article - that figure apparently includes £275k from selling a field he owned. While that is significant, it’s not something that’s repeatable (unless he owns more fields I guess). The salary component was about £130k, which includes MP salary, plus the 50k leadership salary you mentioned.
This was when he was still opposition leader though, so the salary may have gone up since then.
Do you feel he should pay more himself because he had pre-existing wealth from his time as a lawyer? How do you feel about donations in general in our politics?
Really interesting, as usual! Thank you NS. We await Rachel Reeves' Autumn Statement with bated breath! At present my opinion of Rachel Reeves couldn't be lower. I never thought I'd say this but I think they rather desperately need a spin doctor, a modern version of Alistair Campbell. I confess to having been so snooty about spin doctors in the past but the silly mess Starmer/Reeves has allowed to occur calls out for a Firm Hand. Paradoxically, that very Firm Hand probably already exists in the form of Sue Gray but her remit seems to be entirely internal. They need an outward looking Sue Gray or equivalent.
the country does _not_ need Government's despicable behaviours hidden by spin doctors! 😮
It's simple, honesty, integrity & telling the truth is & has been absent from politics for over 25yrs. Infered or direct influence by those who have money to splash is undemocratic.
The real question to which I can’t get an answer is why is no-one discussing the £900k he received in donations, of which the £105k publicised everywhere is simply a tiny drop. Moreover what did he use it for. We know , up to a point, who is giving the money. The question is what access does it give and how much influence that gives them.
What's wrong with granny harmer going to m&s, like the rest of us? Is he not a man of the people?
Why is absolutely noone suggesting that donations personal or to the party are just unacceptable unless they are small.
You have to be mad to think that a donation of millions to the party or thousands to an MP doesn't come with strings even if they're not explicitly identified
Civil Servants sometimes work around politicians. They are banned from taking gifts unless refusal would create offence and are particularly restricted if the value is more than £10. That figure has not been increased for 40 years. Politicians can do the same if they wish and it would be a good thing if they did.
4:17 they didn't do *_ANY_* impact assessment, that's a big part of the problem!
If they *_had_* done impact assessments they would have discovered that the existing system was the cheapest option, cheaper even than withdrawing it completely because of the knock-on expenses in the NHS etc. The proposed means testing is probably the *MOST* expensive option & will swallow any 'savings' many times over even before the NHS bill comes through. 😮
@@alanhat5252 I agree it was clueless. I’ve seen a suggestion the Treasury bundled her into this panic measure when the Black Hole was revealed. I don’t really buy this. Firstly, I can’t believe the so-called Black Hole could ever have been a surprise. But mainly, I think she was totally blinkered: she just saw Tory voting pensioners and she was going to teach them a nasty lesson! Pure vindictiveness allied with utter lack of political nous.
How do you know?
I agree that too much is made of teh Labour donor issue. But why would Starmer need 50 shirts? Especially shirts that are worn inside a suit. Even then, can't he afford a washing service in N10?
Why is fuel so expensive? Deal with that not by subsidising the high costs by offering a handout. Control the cost of fuel.
The New Statesman = an apologist for Starmer's grift.
Lefty cope. Don’t like it when the telescope is spun to the left side of the aisle.
Has anyone asked to see the receipts? How do we know all the money went on just clothes or glasses?
And, why couldn't the money have gone direct to the Labour party so they could fund the clothes?
It’s time someone said that. There used to be an understanding that offsetting a comparatively low salary, therevwould be quite generous benefits, such as various expense allowances. These people are expected to be on duty 24x7. We’ll get what we pay for.
What a disappointment labour have been
Marr has lost his marbles. Spectator far better publication
But it has too many eye-swivelling right wingers.
Who, in their right mind, can take Douglas Murray seriously?
@@Ludus57oh behave, Christ are you five?
Hold them to the same standards as lawyers and accountants. Have a look at the guidance for the proceeds of crime act and the bribery act. A lot of what goes on would be illegal for most people in most professions.
Please STOP this Taylor SWIFTism she is vastly overrated and her music sucks NO MOZART SHE
4:35 there is already "State funding of political parties", it's called Short Money! 😮
2:02 ".....50 shirts cost a bit so I do understand.... Are you taking the piss Marr ? The man's worth millions, I'm sure he can put his hands on a couple of grand or so for a new wardrobe of shirts. Same kind of tossers as the last lot.
I think it is quite easy to see why Labour are not being seen as radical. We have a public sector funding crises. Labour has ruled out tax increases from the main sources and so they have boxed themselves in, being forced to go down the road of austerity. Of course I understand that it is hard to advocate tax increases during the cost of living crises and it would have been harder to win the general election if the Tories were going to capitalise on that.
It is also hard to increase borrowing when interest rates are so high (although they are coming down, so that could change). There appear to be no good choices and that is how it is.
What a vile government.
An underappreciated aspect of the renationalization of the Water and Railway companies and the creation of GB Energy is the capital expenditures that they will expend each year. This will amount to billions each year and over a term potentially tens of billions. Will the government preference local suppliers or have domestic content requirements? Breakfast clubs in school could boost attendance and grades but they need to connect that to the local MP. Any improvements could be evident well before the next election and would be useful in upcoming council elections.
Its certainly is radical. Emptying the party of any principles, and following the cultish ideology of Thatcherism is indeed radical.
Andrew Marr excuses Kier Starmer
They moaned about Michael Foot having one donkey jacket as I recall.
And it wasn't a donkey jacket. The Queen Mother complimented Footy for wearing a practical overcoat for a Remembrance Sunday plagued with bad weather.
It was the lying MSM that referred to a donkey jacket.
Glasses for £15 in Boots? Yeah, nah.
Maybe 20 years ago
Ready readers.
I get mine on ebay for less than a fiver.
@@bakedbean37 Very bad craic
@@rorypuds maybe he ment 159.99
Following a stroke, I would assume Andrew Marr qualifies for an NHS voucher subsidising the true cost of his glasses.
Has anyone donated a new suit to Rishi Sunak after his devastating ‘speaking in the rain’ scene? He ,certainly, would have needed one!
And I’m slimmer than I look
Starmer's done for. When you're being talked about in the same breath as the corrupt tories (too many to mention) the game's up.
Cheers 🍻
I get Hart Schaffner Marx shirts, made-to-measure, for $100 each. If I needed fifty of them that'd be $5000. Not 33 grand.
You can say that Starmer is radical, Marr! The rest of us think that Labour is a shambles and a bloody disgrace and that Starmer is incompetent.
Those people suggesting here that Boris Johnson was worse than Starmer are themselves deluded and have dual standards. Not unlike two tier, free gear Starmer.
Spot on
@@captaintorch983 oh the irony of your bleating
Speak for yourself Captain Torch! You don’t get to speak for everyone
In opposition they were terrified of seeming to radical. No reason why that will stop in government. They will be doing their upmost for radical to seek boring.
I’ve got other words for labour binging with s
Lord Ali’s close connection since Blair’s time with labour party’s MPs and prime minister explains away the two tier everything in this country.
It's important to also point our how extreme the current goverment support for Israel is. Supporting a genosidal state like that goes against to our own law and history. Starmer is very extreme.
What does radical mean? Stupid ?
“Hasn’t got a big private income of his own..”
Are you honestly trying to spin that 170k a year isn’t enough money to afford 50 shirts? You know they sell them in multipacks?
Pull the other one Andrew.
They are already spreading themselves too thin. The govt lacks focus.
Poor old Andrew, desperately trying to protect this mob.
I admire his optimism. In a way, he's like Polly Toynbee, another eternal optimist who first said that Labour would abolish the 2 child benefit cap in the autumn, but can only now hope they will. There's nothing I've heard that suggests radicalism when Labour have unashamedly wedded themselves to being the Tory austerity continuity project.
Mob? Maybe you would have preferred Doorbin and his anti-Semites?
If only that were true.
Jobcentre can give a voucher for a free suit for interviews. Maybe he should have claimed that instead.
JCB Lord Anthony Bamford, paid for Johnson and Brexit for their own narrow interests, and against the interests of the populace as a whole, this is why it matters who is paying the piper for it is they who are calling the tune, while avoiding tax that we all pay by using the Caymans, the poorest pay and get no play Starmer has shown he is no better than Johnson
Radical. Scandalous is what is. This Marr character is very apologetic for Starmer but he knows this man is deeply flawed. What about the remainder, which Marr didn’t even address, and what about his Ministers giving their bungs back.
Yes, we're so plagued by ultra right ... seriously?
Both the free shirt+specs and mp's expenses 'scandals' have come at the exact same time as:
a.) the investigation into the covid fast lane contracts
b.) the fallout from the 2008 financial crash crimes
Interesting.
Come on kier we are all hoping you get in again!
😂😂😂😂
@@martincheeseman5809 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@martincheesenan5809
Are you from planet Moron as well?
So Starmer is changing his shirt 10 times a day!!!! Who then is running the country?
Lets be fair, Let's ban all donations above 200k quid with a maximum of a million a year from all sources, averaged over five years. Those who are not ministers (or on the 'payroll' as they say in SW1) can get half of that. No declarations needed, but accounts kept secure in each office. I'm erring on the low side, but thems the breeks.
Better to ban all donations to individuals, and have a maximum of 5 million for the party over the 5 years, so 1 mil per year to cover everything for all party members. Anything after that they cover themselves.
He had 50 bottles of wine in his belly did Boris Johnson.
All in one session…
Grow up
Blaming the Tories since time began. Take ownership ffs
@@Charlieb6308 Take ownership of what of what? I mean you literally make no sense.
Glasses from boots,talk about product placement,I assume the cheque in the post.allegedly.
Amazingly naive to accept these donations. Need someone who does common sense at Number 10. It won't blow away. That's naive too.
Why is George Eaton still in a job? After he lied about the contents of an interview, shouldn't that be it?
Marr should have left politics with the Tories. We need change in all of politics all the way down to the media coverage.
I always hope to see a good point made here but I remember it's Andrew Marr and he can only give dull takes which are only valid in his world.
And how do you know what is valid in my world? How do you know what is valid to the millions of people you don't know? In short, you speak for yourself and nobody else.
People get mad about the Taylor swift thing like its a huge scandal but lets be objective, its nothing compared to all helicopters Rishy took, the flats Boris had renovated and all the crook PPE contracts. - I think we need some perspective
Excuses excuses excuses. This government is cooked
The comparison you make is not really valid, it is wrong regardless of the extent of the 'donation'. Labour claimed it would govern differently, they seem to be , within a matter of weeks, to have forgotten their principles.
Starmer was so pious in opposition
You set the bar way toooo low. Being less bad isn’t okay.
@@ssocialdrummer I mean, it is different. What Starmer did wasn't against the rules, but much of what Boris did absolutely was and yet didn't get a fraction of the traction this has.
It's utterly ridiculous and anyone who is getting angry at Labour right now but not at the tories is an absolute tool.
What a smug bunch of middle class nonces. Marr defending snouts in the trough when it's obvious to any clear thinking people, that gifts should be banned completely. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Peter hitchens warned us and you closed your ears
Cast your mind back to Michael Foot and his Harrods overcoat that was described as a donkey jacket by The Sun.
Yes his wife’s had a horrible time with all her free designer clothes 🤦🏻♂️
Labour is not radical because most of their policies have turnt out to be a cost to the tax payer or taking something away from the tax payer.
Are you still of the same opinion of Starmer as you were during the election Mr Marr, if so your opinion is worth nought !
We wish they were radical. Get a grip.
Is he talking about Keir Starmer’s extended family? That is yet to come out, but the left wing New Statesman won’t want to address that.
I’d like state funding of political parties. Look it would dirt everything out. It’s what the Germans do. No interested parties or companies or trade unions are permitted to fund political parties or individuals.
*COUNTER POINT - NO ITS NOT*
Correction: Labour is more radical/extreme than the new statesman and middle class urban liberals realised. The rest of us warned you & got laughed at and mocked as racist/far right/stupid etc
9:50 some of that has __already__ been watered down or dropped completely (as expected from all the other things that have been dropped since 2019)
Johnson's clothes would have been new, often quite expensive, and likely 'gifted', I suspect - as we know, his 'sloppy' image has always been contrived. In the background, it's always been about what he can take from others.
5:48 Starmer took his wife and 14 year old daughter to Taylor Swift concert, journalist think this is an outrage. Ridiculous!
Starmer has every right to take his wife and kids to a concert. But he could pay for the tickets, not take them as a free "gift". That's the issue.
@@tobydavies6240 now do Lisa Nandy! What should she pay or not pay for?
What short memories you have on the subject of how politicians dress, I seem to recall Michael Foot being mauled as Labour leader for his jacket at a Remembrance Day Parade. Also Sloppy BJ the sex yeti may not have been well dressed (or studiously made sure he didn't appear like it) but he had the Downing Street flat redecorated for free with a donor footing the bill amongst other things.
Parties should pay for their own campaigns..... it might require them to recruit.... Heaven forfend! Actually recruit members? No, members are not required. Shirts for work are a tax deduction.... what a lame excuse.
6000.00 quid was not all he grifted.
Labour are more rotten than it seems. Get rid of that 👉 🤓
There nothing radical about labour under keir starmer. Like someone famously said about keir is the same bottom as the Conservatives , just a different cheek.
Hasn't got a bug private income of his own? Come off it, Andrew!
Don't insult our intelligence stating Starmer uses 50 shirts in 24 hours. He doesn't put on a new shirt every half hour.
That’s not what he said
You need either your hearing or your memory looked at. At least one of them is malfunctioning.
@@gio-oz8gfdid you type this comment yourself or get someone else to pay for it 😂😂
Andrew Marr really has lost the plot these days , he really needs to sit back and consider what he is about and why
Don’t think Marr still gets it - normal people have to buy their own suits! Also the team seem to be avoiding the fact the wfp cut is predicted to kill 4,000 pensioners, it’s sickening and should be the focus not this tosh
4000 pensioners my arse. When I was a boy no one had central heating at all, we had a paraffin heater in the lounge. No one died. I would wake up and there would be ice inside the bedroom windows. None of my family froze to death. Its nonsense.
George Eaton blinks too infrequently
100 days kicked the OAPs and trousered cash, brilliant he is a wet cardboard cut-out of nothing
More dangerous and corrupt you mean.
Hmmm. Labour seems to be the Tory Party minus the hardcore racists. So, it's only the slightest of improvements.