By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I really don't have an issue with it, so long as all properly declared. No different to a customer paying me a little extra or giving a bottle of wine because they like the decorating work I've done.
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:25 - Sep 17 by Guthrum
I really don't have an issue with it, so long as all properly declared. No different to a customer paying me a little extra or giving a bottle of wine because they like the decorating work I've done.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:31]
But we're talking about the public sector here.
Assuming he was treated like me and other civil servants, Starmer as DPP wouldn't have been allowed to freeload, and in my view the same rules ought to apply to MPs and ministers who are similarly public servants.
Such rules exist in the civil service to avoid corruption or the perception of corruption, and why should MPs and minsters be any different?
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:35]
2
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:42 - Sep 17 with 2136 views
But is it really freeloading DJ? I don't know that much about it, other than it seems much of this is recorded in his interests already. Where he hasn't listed things, then of course he should accept the consequences. You mention indefensible, but have they offered a defence? Again, I've probably missed it. I've noted you haven't particularly positive about Labour since before they won the election. Haven't you mentioned you had a working relationship for the party? Apologies if I've got that wrong. What outcome would you like to see over this?
As an aside, do you have a view on the party bringing the junior drs dispute to an end? A decent pay rise for sure, but I would imagine they are worth it. This positive result can only help the NHS to cope with the upcoming winter and is something I'm sure we could all unite behind as a great success story and just help to lift the current doom and gloom. If even for a moment before the next attack on Starmer and co.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:44]
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
0
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:47 - Sep 17 with 2106 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:42 - Sep 17 by Whos_blue
But is it really freeloading DJ? I don't know that much about it, other than it seems much of this is recorded in his interests already. Where he hasn't listed things, then of course he should accept the consequences. You mention indefensible, but have they offered a defence? Again, I've probably missed it. I've noted you haven't particularly positive about Labour since before they won the election. Haven't you mentioned you had a working relationship for the party? Apologies if I've got that wrong. What outcome would you like to see over this?
As an aside, do you have a view on the party bringing the junior drs dispute to an end? A decent pay rise for sure, but I would imagine they are worth it. This positive result can only help the NHS to cope with the upcoming winter and is something I'm sure we could all unite behind as a great success story and just help to lift the current doom and gloom. If even for a moment before the next attack on Starmer and co.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:44]
I'll get back to you when I have a bit more time!
1
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:51 - Sep 17 with 2087 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:51 - Sep 17 by leitrimblue
Argh, but he won the ultimate prize. Getting to spend a lifetime with Theresa..
I think being a senior manager in a trillion dollar investment fund and being married to a Conservative prime minister had benefits beyond a few bits of clobber.
2
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:10 - Sep 17 with 1999 views
for much of the election the rightwing press was running a campaign about the absence of starmer's wife from public events. the right wing gossip outlets online were trying to push a line that starmer had had an affair and his wife's absence was connected to that. there is clearly a public expectation to see the spouses of leaders and to hold them up for scrutiny. like it or not their appearance is part of that scrutiny and someone who didn't confirm to how famous people are expected to dress etc would be torn about. i don't therefore see anything wrong with someone donating money for a wardrobe to support the spouses (enforced) public appearances.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
1
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:21 - Sep 17 with 1972 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:42 - Sep 17 by Whos_blue
But is it really freeloading DJ? I don't know that much about it, other than it seems much of this is recorded in his interests already. Where he hasn't listed things, then of course he should accept the consequences. You mention indefensible, but have they offered a defence? Again, I've probably missed it. I've noted you haven't particularly positive about Labour since before they won the election. Haven't you mentioned you had a working relationship for the party? Apologies if I've got that wrong. What outcome would you like to see over this?
As an aside, do you have a view on the party bringing the junior drs dispute to an end? A decent pay rise for sure, but I would imagine they are worth it. This positive result can only help the NHS to cope with the upcoming winter and is something I'm sure we could all unite behind as a great success story and just help to lift the current doom and gloom. If even for a moment before the next attack on Starmer and co.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:44]
I was a member of the Labour Party for nearly 40 years and reached the giddy heights of Secretary of my constituency Labour Party but, having voted for Starmer (but never for Corbyn), got increasingly disillusioned with the direction he was taking the party in, and resigned my membership last autumn.
My views were formed in a period (the 1970s) when there was a distinct difference between the public and private sectors, and were reinforced by working as a civil servant for nearly 30 years which had completely different values to the private sector I previously worked in when it comes to accepting gifts.
As result, I believe it is wrong in principle for Starmer and his wife to accept gifts of clothes etc, although it is not against the rules.
I also think it is bad politics given this passage from Times Radio this morning.
Abell: “But let’s boil it down. Why shouldn’t the prime minister, he earns £166,000 a year, why shouldn’t he buy his own glasses?”
Eagle: “Well, why don’t you ask him?”
Abell: “Well, he’s not here. You’re here for the government. I mean, if he comes on here, we might try.”
Eagle: “I am, but I’m afraid I’m not responsible for decisions the prime minister makes.”
Abell: “You’re not, but you have an opinion. Should he not buy his own glasses? You’re wearing a pair of glasses now. You presumably paid for them yourself. I’m wearing a pair of glasses now. I pay for them myself. Why shouldn’t the prime minister?”
Eagle: “Well, the prime minister has had his say on that. And if you next time you interview him, you could ask him yourself. I don’t have an opinion.”
Abell: “Well, I’ll tell you why you might have an opinion. Angela Rayner had an opinion when Boris Johnson was getting money from donors. She tweeted: ‘What right does a man who complains he can’t live on £150,000 a year and ask Tory donors to fund his luxury wallpaper habit, what right does he have to lecture someone trying to survive on £80 a week?’ That’s what Labour attacked Boris Johnson for doing. And now you’ve got someone who has a luxury glasses habit who’s taking money from pensioners. People are going to have an opinion on that, aren’t they?”
I agree the party has done some good things that the Tories would never have done but there are certain things for me that are just wrong, such as cutting winter fuel payments for many poor pensioners and what I would regard as freeloading. And because I have some skin in the game, I feel particularly passionate about things like this.
Phillip May must be disappointed on 09:32 - Sep 17 by DJR
But we're talking about the public sector here.
Assuming he was treated like me and other civil servants, Starmer as DPP wouldn't have been allowed to freeload, and in my view the same rules ought to apply to MPs and ministers who are similarly public servants.
Such rules exist in the civil service to avoid corruption or the perception of corruption, and why should MPs and minsters be any different?
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 9:35]
Civil servants are not prohibited from accepting things like birthday and Christmas gifts, or ordinary discount offers from retailers (at least, not the low/medium level ones I've known).
Where do you draw the line? If a friend is buying the PM's wife a nice dress, is that at all in the same category as a business owner giving an MP a highly-paid, very part-time "consultancy" sinecure at their company?
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:28 - Sep 17 by Guthrum
Civil servants are not prohibited from accepting things like birthday and Christmas gifts, or ordinary discount offers from retailers (at least, not the low/medium level ones I've known).
Where do you draw the line? If a friend is buying the PM's wife a nice dress, is that at all in the same category as a business owner giving an MP a highly-paid, very part-time "consultancy" sinecure at their company?
the dress is a campaign cost not substantially different from the cost of travel between campaign appearances.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:55 - Sep 17 with 1830 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:28 - Sep 17 by Guthrum
Civil servants are not prohibited from accepting things like birthday and Christmas gifts, or ordinary discount offers from retailers (at least, not the low/medium level ones I've known).
Where do you draw the line? If a friend is buying the PM's wife a nice dress, is that at all in the same category as a business owner giving an MP a highly-paid, very part-time "consultancy" sinecure at their company?
I worked in Whitehall for nearly 30 years and was never offered and would never have accepted a gift.
The position was brought home to me on my first day in the office when I was told we had to pay weekly for the tea and biscuits on offer, something that reinforced the view that civil servants should not expect freebies at all.
The Civil Service Code states that civil servants must not accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity. And in my view the best way to comply with this is to avoid receiving gifts at all, and similar principles should apply to MPs and minsters.
Obviously some civil servants are outfacing and deal with commercial organisations and will receive gifts but the rules are still strict.
For example, I came across in relation to Monitor.
You may retain all gifts valued at £40.00 or under, whether given in recognition of presentations or otherwise.
For gifts exceeding a value of £40.00 the following options are suggested: share the gift with all staff; raffle the gift for charity; donate the gift to charity; or make a donation to charity and keep the gift.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 11:04]
-1
Phillip May must be disappointed on 11:06 - Sep 17 with 1750 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:21 - Sep 17 by DJR
I was a member of the Labour Party for nearly 40 years and reached the giddy heights of Secretary of my constituency Labour Party but, having voted for Starmer (but never for Corbyn), got increasingly disillusioned with the direction he was taking the party in, and resigned my membership last autumn.
My views were formed in a period (the 1970s) when there was a distinct difference between the public and private sectors, and were reinforced by working as a civil servant for nearly 30 years which had completely different values to the private sector I previously worked in when it comes to accepting gifts.
As result, I believe it is wrong in principle for Starmer and his wife to accept gifts of clothes etc, although it is not against the rules.
I also think it is bad politics given this passage from Times Radio this morning.
Abell: “But let’s boil it down. Why shouldn’t the prime minister, he earns £166,000 a year, why shouldn’t he buy his own glasses?”
Eagle: “Well, why don’t you ask him?”
Abell: “Well, he’s not here. You’re here for the government. I mean, if he comes on here, we might try.”
Eagle: “I am, but I’m afraid I’m not responsible for decisions the prime minister makes.”
Abell: “You’re not, but you have an opinion. Should he not buy his own glasses? You’re wearing a pair of glasses now. You presumably paid for them yourself. I’m wearing a pair of glasses now. I pay for them myself. Why shouldn’t the prime minister?”
Eagle: “Well, the prime minister has had his say on that. And if you next time you interview him, you could ask him yourself. I don’t have an opinion.”
Abell: “Well, I’ll tell you why you might have an opinion. Angela Rayner had an opinion when Boris Johnson was getting money from donors. She tweeted: ‘What right does a man who complains he can’t live on £150,000 a year and ask Tory donors to fund his luxury wallpaper habit, what right does he have to lecture someone trying to survive on £80 a week?’ That’s what Labour attacked Boris Johnson for doing. And now you’ve got someone who has a luxury glasses habit who’s taking money from pensioners. People are going to have an opinion on that, aren’t they?”
I agree the party has done some good things that the Tories would never have done but there are certain things for me that are just wrong, such as cutting winter fuel payments for many poor pensioners and what I would regard as freeloading. And because I have some skin in the game, I feel particularly passionate about things like this.
Cheers DJ.
Sounds like an interesting career. I've also been a public servant for 30+ years.
Regarding the interview transcript, it's clear they were lining Eagle up and they were sitting on the Rayner comment until they drew her in. It seems Eagle was wise to it and effectively batted it away. I have to say I've always been a fan of hers. It's just noise to take the focus away from good stuff like the junior drs agreement. But I know you know this!
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
2
Phillip May must be disappointed on 11:15 - Sep 17 with 1710 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 11:06 - Sep 17 by Whos_blue
Cheers DJ.
Sounds like an interesting career. I've also been a public servant for 30+ years.
Regarding the interview transcript, it's clear they were lining Eagle up and they were sitting on the Rayner comment until they drew her in. It seems Eagle was wise to it and effectively batted it away. I have to say I've always been a fan of hers. It's just noise to take the focus away from good stuff like the junior drs agreement. But I know you know this!
I like Eagle too. She even managed to get in an anti-Arsenal dig in her interview with Kay Burley about freebies - she's a Liverpool fan.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 11:16]
0
Phillip May must be disappointed on 11:37 - Sep 17 with 1613 views
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:55 - Sep 17 by DJR
I worked in Whitehall for nearly 30 years and was never offered and would never have accepted a gift.
The position was brought home to me on my first day in the office when I was told we had to pay weekly for the tea and biscuits on offer, something that reinforced the view that civil servants should not expect freebies at all.
The Civil Service Code states that civil servants must not accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity. And in my view the best way to comply with this is to avoid receiving gifts at all, and similar principles should apply to MPs and minsters.
Obviously some civil servants are outfacing and deal with commercial organisations and will receive gifts but the rules are still strict.
For example, I came across in relation to Monitor.
You may retain all gifts valued at £40.00 or under, whether given in recognition of presentations or otherwise.
For gifts exceeding a value of £40.00 the following options are suggested: share the gift with all staff; raffle the gift for charity; donate the gift to charity; or make a donation to charity and keep the gift.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 11:04]
I'm sure you're right with regard to gifts associated directly with work. I meant if something could be classed as "personal", from a friend, rather than a lobbyist.
I don't disagree that the Civil Service's high standards should also apply to other people in public life. But such has never been the case with MPs. Historically, there was pretty open corruption at times. At least nowadays some fuss is made about it which they feel the need to pay attention to.
Phillip May must be disappointed on 10:21 - Sep 17 by DJR
I was a member of the Labour Party for nearly 40 years and reached the giddy heights of Secretary of my constituency Labour Party but, having voted for Starmer (but never for Corbyn), got increasingly disillusioned with the direction he was taking the party in, and resigned my membership last autumn.
My views were formed in a period (the 1970s) when there was a distinct difference between the public and private sectors, and were reinforced by working as a civil servant for nearly 30 years which had completely different values to the private sector I previously worked in when it comes to accepting gifts.
As result, I believe it is wrong in principle for Starmer and his wife to accept gifts of clothes etc, although it is not against the rules.
I also think it is bad politics given this passage from Times Radio this morning.
Abell: “But let’s boil it down. Why shouldn’t the prime minister, he earns £166,000 a year, why shouldn’t he buy his own glasses?”
Eagle: “Well, why don’t you ask him?”
Abell: “Well, he’s not here. You’re here for the government. I mean, if he comes on here, we might try.”
Eagle: “I am, but I’m afraid I’m not responsible for decisions the prime minister makes.”
Abell: “You’re not, but you have an opinion. Should he not buy his own glasses? You’re wearing a pair of glasses now. You presumably paid for them yourself. I’m wearing a pair of glasses now. I pay for them myself. Why shouldn’t the prime minister?”
Eagle: “Well, the prime minister has had his say on that. And if you next time you interview him, you could ask him yourself. I don’t have an opinion.”
Abell: “Well, I’ll tell you why you might have an opinion. Angela Rayner had an opinion when Boris Johnson was getting money from donors. She tweeted: ‘What right does a man who complains he can’t live on £150,000 a year and ask Tory donors to fund his luxury wallpaper habit, what right does he have to lecture someone trying to survive on £80 a week?’ That’s what Labour attacked Boris Johnson for doing. And now you’ve got someone who has a luxury glasses habit who’s taking money from pensioners. People are going to have an opinion on that, aren’t they?”
I agree the party has done some good things that the Tories would never have done but there are certain things for me that are just wrong, such as cutting winter fuel payments for many poor pensioners and what I would regard as freeloading. And because I have some skin in the game, I feel particularly passionate about things like this.
Mirrors the experience of a old friend of mine. Was a LibDem councillor, defected to Labour (his original political home) after Corbyn was deposed. Now massively disillusioned and has pretty much stepped away from active politics.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
