Why does it matter that Keir Starmer has received maybe £100,000 of personal financial gifts and support during his time as prime minister? And why does this create such a difficult political situation for him, most especially when contrasted with his desire to limit the two-child benefit cap and remove the winter fuel allowance from millions?
There are a number of reasons I think are worth exploring because of what they say about Starmer and the party he leads.
Firstly, the message Starmer is sending is that he cannot live within his means, although he and his Chancellor are sending out the message to the country that it, and the most vulnerable within it, must do so. This stinks of hypocrisy, which any serious politician should have been able to sense a mile off and not gone near.
Second, the receipt of these gifts presents Starmer as possessed of a sense of entitlement, which impression he would, again, have not given near if he was possessed of any serious political antennae.
Third, the vanity implicit in many of the items funded suggests that he is either a superficial man or one deeply insecure about himself. The message is that he is either more interested in appearance than substance or so insecure about himself that he thinks that fashionable trappings will improve his standing, at least in his own eyes. In either case the message is one of insecurity that ill becomes a prime minister.
And then there is the indifference implicit in his actions. He can have these things because others might pay for them. He seems untroubled that others may not be so fortunate.
Coupled with that is an indifference to inequality: he wishes the world to note he is not one with everyone else. That is most unwise for a supposedly Labour prime minister.
And, with all these being noted, nothing overcomes the sense that he is being bought. Would, after all, these gifts have been made if he was not the leader of the Labour Party? So why were they made to him, and not the Party, because he was? It's a question that he must have known would have been asked, and that should have been avoided, even if there is an entirely innocent explanation for what has happened. The natural cynicism of many towards politicians makes that inevitable.
Then, put this in the context of his chosen political fight, which is with those children and pensioners who have apparently brought this country to its knees and must pay the price for having done so in his obvious opinion, and this all becomes even harder to comprehend. The message is glaringly obviously that he is deserving and that millions possessed of insufficient to meet the basics of living are not. It really is an odious political message.
Where does this leave Starmer? I cannot be alone in thinking that he has now succeeded in presenting himself as without a moral compass or any political sense, let alone an understanding of what his Party is supposed to stand for months after an election in which, almost by chance and certainly only because of the absurdity of our electoral system, he won a big majority.
Being prime minister exposed Boris Johnson as the wholly inadequate man he was. It feels very much like it is doing the same thing for Starmer. Except for Starmer, this might actually be worse. Johnson's stupidity might have been an act, but it was well known in advance. Starmer played a safe, sober and sensible card. It's now apparent that he is none of those things but is possessed of poor judgement, vanity and imprudence. The revelation is sudden, shocking, and likely to be deeply damaging.
Starmer has exposed to the electorate just who he is. I get the impression they don't like what they see.
As I have said before, this is going to be a very long five years unless Labour comes to its senses and rids itself of Starmer, Reeves and Streeting within a couple of years. They should, but I doubt they will. The sense that this might be a one-term government is, at the moment, very strong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Shocking absolutely sticking two fingers up to the Electorate
Anyone who has read Animal Farm should not be surprised
Left or right pigs often take over the farm.
Beneath the posh free suits etc. sanctimonious Kier now revealed as a greedy hypocritical pig.
Oink oink.
Again? The surprise!
As I have been saying for years – That Great Knight Dope was NEVER a ‘good guy’.
He was put into power not to Praise and Save Labour but to BURY it forever.
To bury the concept of a welfare state and a social contract.
To progress the neocon agendas.
It’s the continuation of same process that Thatcherism and Blairism have moved the country to.
A global robbers gangsters paradise – where War is the order of the day and any protest is met with lawfare and propaganda.
Anyone who still refuses to acknowledge Starmers sticky fingers in the worst cover ups over the last two decades is being wilfully and deliberately blind and deaf. Savile, Janner, Assange …etc.
That is why he is hugely rewarded and gets to hang out with the horsey crowds and jetsetters.
At the end of which the Labour membership will be so disillusioned they will stop believing in political action!
So please – can we stop with the goldfish bowl like constant surprise at the actions of our Fascist Uniparty State and it’s daily more draconian actions?
Yes another good blog Richard. In one sense I am not surprised that he does not see it as a problem. During the election campaign in Hull I believe he got really annoyed when the audience laughed when he repeated his “My father was a toolmaker” line. Showed a degree of insecurity and arrogance. I get the distinct impression that whereas in 1997 a lot of people who did not vote Labour were however broadly supportive of Labour getting in and wished them well. It is not the case now with people – not conservative supporters being negative or hostile particularly to Starmer. This can only get worse. I am sticking with my appraisal pre July that he is fifth rate, economically illiterate, arrogant and not that bright!
On the idea of making cuts the governments approach is one that lacks the insight provided by Keynes – if governments cut back then spending is cut and the economy contracts. Every pensioner with less money will make cuts which will impact on traders, retail, leisure etc.
On this point I noted that the BBC had an online article quoting pensioners who said that they used their WFA for holidays or going out as if that meant they did not need the money, though not sure how you work out exactly where the WFA payment goes! Mine was paid into the bank and in one sense it could be spent on anything but was allocated to spending on fuel. The article also said there are wealthy pensioners in terms of house values – my response is so what? House prices have risen its part of the rise in asset values. But its not an income.
I wondered when the BBC was going to have a reporter in Oxford street or Heathrow asking people what they were spending money on and then suggesting, it if was say over £300 that they were being paid too much and should take a pay cut!
If any pensioner’s fuel bill rose by £300 in the winter quarter and they paid that amount out of income then the winter fuel allowance was indeed spent on fuel.
Some recipients of the WFA gave it to charity, like Trussell Trust foodbanks.
Some may have spent it on overseas holiday activities, but otherwise it’ll have gone into the UK economy.
Can Keir Starmer survive the 5 years?
There must already be mutterings of disquiet within the Party, so I am just wondering if there is any mechanism to replace a leader who is also the Prime MInister within the Labour constitution.
Does anyone know?
Interesting you should say that :
Labour Party insiders fear that a new set of changes to the rulebook could prevent challengers from forcing a leadership election to be held, PoliticsHome understands. If new rules due to be considered in the upcoming party conference are passed the rules will be ‘An election shall only be held when a vacancy occurs”.18/9/24
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-changing-rules-stop-leadership-challenges
Staggering
What did Tony Benn ask? How do we get rid of you?
The question is: will there be enough delegates capable of thinking for themselves and rejecting such propositions, and the same applies to union delegations.
Several conferences ago, the membership was persuaded to reduce the number of emergency motions they could put forward, thus shooting themselves in the foot.
The same thing Xi Jumping got his conference to vote for!
With apologies to that Leader and the esteemed readers here: Jinping.
Auto correct strikes again 🙂
Starmer is unlikely to be replaced by democratic means, as he and his corrupt Gen Sec/National Exec have a firm grip on over 50% of CLPs, as many are irredeemably Blairite/right wing. They also control the Conference agenda. He could be replaced by internal Party coup/rich donor wishes. The media could influence this suppose. My money is on a midterm coup, with Streeting or similar to come
@Bill
I’m really shocked by what you write – thanks for waking me up.
Things are far worse than I thought, thank goodness I didn’t vote them.
Starmer, June 2024 – “handouts lack the dignity of work”. hits head on desk.
Winter’s FOOLS. I can’t believe he’s already looking like a greedy man. He’s a high paid lawyer. Must have been on £ 100k maybe even 300k.
He has been an MP for some time, but has been well paid
As DPP, in 2010, he was earning a salary of £195k to £199k (plus any outside income). Median earnings was about £26,000. Today median earnings is about £35k so that is still a very good salary.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a789ed9ed915d042206408d/high-earners-pay_0.csv/preview
Last year Starmer had income of £130k and a gain of about £275k (lucky him) and he paid about £44k of income tax and about £55k of capital gains tax.
(I can’t immediately find the original document but there is this. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/keir-starmer-paid-99400-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals )
So his overall tax was about 25% …
Not much different to Rishi Sunak, although his income + gains etc was £2m
About the same average tax take as someone simply earning a salary of £60k.
No horizontal equity or vertical justice there!
This is why he should increase the CGT rate
Yet another two-faced politician the British have a fondness for sleep-walking into office. Long term this spells big trouble for the country!
Part of his mission – in contrast to the Tories was apparently to ‘clean up’ politics.
This could have meant getting all vested interest money and bribery out of our politics – but its was always just and impression given – and never likely in practice.
After all – the private money model funded his faction-based rise to the Labour leadership, and then funded his election victory and elimination of thousands of Labour members, whose membership fees were no longer needed.
Until we get big money out of politics our system is utterly corrupt.
Much to agree with
Ah…. the bigger story has just come out.
‘Luckily’ reported in the tiny one week window between Sunak calling the election and the start of the period in which all donations of over £11,180 had to be published weekly – instead of quarterly – just in those few days Labour accepted its biggest ever donation – £4,000,000 – four million pounds from…… “Quadrature Capital – a Cayman Islands registered hedge fundwith shares worth hundreds of millions… in fossil fuels, private health firms, arms manufacturers abd asset managers” – according to Ethan Shone on Open Democracy.
Rather puts posh glasses into perspective.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/
I discussed that with the BBC a few days ago. I have never heard a resulting story.
The latest revelation: £4m donation to Labour from a Cayman Islands hedge fund, invested inter alia in fossil fuels and armaments.
Donation made within days of the election announcement, but before the start of the mandatory weekly reporting of receipts – so it’s only just been revealed in Electoral Commission data; and the electorate didn’t know before voting.
Agreed.
I mean – what is the source of the blind spot here?
Starmer’s ‘being clothed’ is almost like a ceremony to me – because he has been packaged up and delivered to the electorate by those who fund him, and to whom he is accountable (and that ain’t me and thee).
A crown has been placed on his head, effectively , it’s a sort of coronation to me, that plugs Starmer into the ‘haves’ and sets him apart from the ‘have nots’.
There is also don’t you think, also an element of the temporary about this? It’s as if the idea is ‘Go on Keir, make the most of it, enjoy yourself you’ll be out within 5 years anyway whilst the Tory party sorts itself out’.
As for getting rid – well, McSwinney and Mandelson will have something to say about that. They will tell us that this is ‘old politics’ and we are out of step.
Well we are – because a lot of us have been made poorer these last 14 years whilst certain other people who have only been here for 5 minutes get free clothes and help to read.
One can almost imagine an image of the reversal of the famous H C Andersen story, this time Starmer is dressed in the very finest of outfits surrounded by a huge crowd of naked pensioners, plus a small boy who shouts out “the Prime Minister is wearing clothes”.
” the prime minister is wearing someone else’s clothes!”
My fear is that with both the established parties unelectable, but united in wanting to keep our silly FPTP electoral system. The next PM might be another odious self serving conman. Perhaps, Irish Unification, Scottish Independence and Welsh fedralisation, under its new party apparatchik system, will shake the political foundations of the UK. Something serious needs to be done to give GB a future.
I agree with you, but one small clarification: wasn’t this ~£100k bill since he became Labour leader in 2020, not since becoming PM?
Apologies…
I think it is grossly unfair to attack the Prime Mincer in this fashion. He is only emulating one of the characters from “Boys from the Blackstuff”
Yozzer: “gis a job”
Sir Starmer: “gis money”
Both deserving characters in their own different ways. I will leave it to gentle readers to reflect on what Sir Starmer is deserving of.
(in situations like these – ridicule is the only valid response – although this is not to criticise the points the blog makes).
Thank you and well said, Richard.
“The sense that this might be a one-term government is, at the moment, very strong.”
A year or so ago, some thoughtful current and former Whitehall officials thought that would be the case as, in anticipation of an election this year, Starmer and Reeves doubled down on plans for austerity. A comparison with 1974 – 9 was made.
Appropriately
And with a change of PM two years in, I hope
Thank you, Richard.
A change of PM was not contemplated.
The retired officials joined in the 1970s and remember Callaghan and Healey setting the country on the path of monetarism.
I should have added that I have just returned from a fortnight in France and, in addition to this scandalous behaviour, something else made me think about corruption.
French based readers Anne Rigaut and Geof Cox may have heard about last week’s interview of former diplomat and minister Dominique de Villepin on France Inter. Villepin appealed passionately on behalf of Palestine and Ukraine and for multipolarity and France to step up and away from the US and Israel and even EU. I have noticed that the only retired diplomats expressing such views are well to do, unlikely to be corrupted or put off by Zionists and the US MIC proxies. In the UK, I have noticed similar expressions from historian William Dalrymple and retired general Charlie Herbert, both toffs.
Richard and readers should search online for this interview and some before and lament at the calibre of politicians now.
Should one pine for the likes of the 14th Earl of Home and PMs with private incomes?
@Colonel Smithers
No! Because if we pine for the likes of the 14th Earl of Home and PMs with private incomes then we only get the likes of 14th Earl of Home and PMs with private income.
The UK needs more elected representatives like Jon Trickett, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott.
The USA needs a dozen more Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens
Just because one has a private income does not mean one is not corrupt or cannot be corrupted.
Can only attend matches with free executive boxes at Arsenal ?
The gooner is a goon.
“Why does it matter that Keir Starmer has received maybe £100,000 of personal financial gifts and support during his time as prime minister?”
He hasn’t. This covers his period as leader of the Labour party.
What’s the difference, other than scale, between you accepting donations and Starmer doing the same? You’re happy to accept them from people who probably have less income and wealth than you do. Doesn’t seem to trouble you.
Accepting donations is part of my explcit business model to keep this blog going
Starmer is paid generrously to do his job already
You can’t spot the difference
That’s how I know you are a troll
“What’s the difference, other than scale, between you accepting donations and Starmer doing the same?”
@George Materna –
Mr. Murphy works entirely in the private sector and Mr. Starmer “works” in the government sector.
Gifts are acceptable in the private sector but gifts are NOT acceptable in the government sector.
And I pay tax on my donations
Will Starmer on his?
He should, these are in my opinion taxable benefits in kind resulting from his employment.
It’s been well known since his dogged obsession with the Twitter joke trial that he has bad judgement.
Nothing I’ve seen since has changed this. In fact it’s regularly reinforced.
I’m hoping that the Ill will he’s built up in a few short months will make a very uncomfortable conference for him. Which may see a change in direction. He’s not untouchable.
In a way his majority may work against him. If you can put a large proportion of your MPs into ministerial jobs then they tend to behave more. A lot won’t hand that and can see that if things stay as they are that they will have a very short parliamentary career.
His ‘defence’ of this seems to be confined to the Arsenal Directors’ Box. Pathetic.
A shrewder man might have eschewed such freebies and found the chance to joke about the burdens of office meaning that he can only watch the odd game on catch-up – as millions of other ‘hardworking’ citizens do, that is only when they are lucky enough to be able to afford the cable/satelite charges.
As for the rest? A display of self-satisified vain and greedy contempt. LINO indeed.
Politicians should not be allowed gifts of any kind, in order to address all the points you made.
I agree with that
@ Ian Tresman
Not sure how old you are but I have recollections of a great stooshie about Reggie Maudlin and the gift of a teapot in the days of Cunningham (Senior) and T Dan Smith. Labour was always won’t to ape the corrupt ways of its ‘social betters’. Someone posted a reminder of the lessons of Orwell’s Animal Farm just recently.
Apparently, according to a poll result quoted to me the other day on F*c*book, 68% of those who voted for Starmer’s Party are still happy with his leadership.
If the alternative is Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss or Boris Johnson, I can understand the 68% poll results.
If you look at it another way, he’s alienated 32% of the people who voted for him in about three months, half of which he was on holiday.
Apparently Starmer got more gifts and freebies (bribies they should really be called) in these 4 years as Labour leader than 5 previous Labour leaders combined (this would include more than 15 years of Blair as well).
I get that Starmer hasn’t got much feeling for politics, seems to live in a complete bubble and is vain, hypocritical, untrustworthy and many other adjectives, but what I don’t get is why the Labour Party hasn’t been prepared for this. They must have known this was going to cause a huge uproar (in the end his policies were not the end of Johnson, but parties and wallpapers – it’s always little things people can relate to that get under their skin) and should’ve stopped this in the bud. But they seem to be genuinely surprised people care about this.
If he understood the Nolan principles which all in a public sector role should follow we wouldn’t even be discussing this.
Donations should not even give the impression of influence.
For a politician he has almost no political nous.
If only there were a proper left of center party that I could join
If only there were a proper left of center party that I could join
Move to Scotland, we have one.
I would also add that when I was a school governor, all conflicts of interest had to be declared. If a conflict was declared then you had to absent yourself from any discussions and votes related to that conflict.
I would think that MPs should follow the same principle.
Quite right to
He’s a public figure involved in politics at the top.
He/the party he leads has absolute political power – he more than any other individual in the UK CAN change things immediately.
I therefore feel perfectly within my rights in saying I find the public persona Sir Keir Starmer, leader of his majesty’s government, absolutely, gut-wrenchingly abhorrent.
Richard and readers may be interested in https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/our-values-killing-pensioners-to. Having worked in Russia and Kazakhstan for HSBC, I can attest.
But I think I would rather not live in Putin’s Russia. I would certainly feel nervous near windows.
Starmer’s defence of only being able to watch football from the directors’ box could have been parried at a stroke, but only if he had donated the value of the hospitality to a named charity. After all his stated reasons were surely about safety and security, not affordability.
One wonders if https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/eu-uk-trade-deal-continues-stifle-trade-27-drop-exports-2021 and Starmer’s rejection of any meaningful rapprochement will also undermine confidence.
The elephant is on the room, and is being ignored by Labour when everyone else can see it
> Gifts accepted by Starmer now total some £100,000.
> Gifts accepted by Jeremy Corbyn when leader £450
https://mstdn.social/@markhburton/113157539804611910
Not really any more to add.
Obviously that was why Mr Corbyn was deemed unacceptable as a future PM: he was too honest and incorruptible.
@Bay Tampa Bay
You neglect to mention David Cameron and Theresa May. I don’t think they were much better either.
If Keir Starmer’s rating is only that he be preferable to this cast list of inept or incompetent PMs then he is surely damned with faint praise.
PS I don’t take the 68% approval at face value because I don’t know what question was asked. I am frankly sceptical. The information about the poll came to me in response to my suggestion that those expecting to see Starmer suddenly manifest his socialist instincts were surely feeling disappointed. My correspondent thought not. He is apparently entirely comfortable with the direction of travel.
I despair.
The one glimmer of light is the axing of the Sunak plan to export our asylum seekers to Rwanda, but if I’m being cynical that could well be on purely financial grounds. It was never going to be a viable policy in monetary terms. Sunak was prepared to pay that price for political influence which Starmer/Reeves are not. (And can score brownie points for the policy shift on two fronts: humanitarian and economic.)
Per The Spectator:
“Keir Starmer accepted free tickets to see Taylor Swift and seats in a hospitality box at Arsenal because it is ‘part of the job’, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said.”
DIGUSTING! Both the actions and the reason behind the actions.
Agreed
What is even worse is Sue Gray, his top advisor couldn’t see this coming and she is paid more than him!
Does the story really matter?
Both are very well paid, but not exceptionally so by the standard of large organisation, and much less than the TV journalists reporting it
So is this a diversion?
Or a sign of Labour infighting?
I think both. It takes us away from bigger stories. And the neoliberals hate each other.
Starmer et al have absolutely destroyed any hope I had of real chnage under the Labour banner.
I was a council estate kid in a working class town where Labour were seen as the only hope for us. As a result, when I started work I became involved in trades unionism and over the years becamse a shop steward and then a company convenor. Labour was my all – and it resulted in me going on to study at Ruskin College, Oxford and once I qualified, bringing in what I had learned there into the workpl;ace.
Then along came Blair, followed by Brown and Corbyn and I was aghast at the way they behaved – more about them than anyone else, minoroty issues to attract votes, following the US in Iraq, mismanaging the economy and onto semitism and so on. Finally, along comes Starmer and in the few short weeks he has been in he has absolutely destroted any faith I had in both change and the Labour movement.
I will no longer vote. I feel betrayed, let down and ignored and I am certain I am not the only one who feels this way.
Oh and for those who say ‘well who would ave been the best PM we never had?’ – that answer is simple. John Smith.
Thanks for sharing
You are not alone, I know