Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[PJL]

I was thinking the same thing. And if centrists like us are thinking that, goodness knows what the left are thinking.

[Sheilbh]

Starmer continues to zero in on important hills to die on:

Long-term sick need to get back to work where they can, says Starmer
Labour leader says there should be more support to help people back into jobs, vowing to do 'everything we can to tackle worklessness'

So I'll defend Starmer on this one - though not winter fuel payments which got defeated at Labour Party Conference (it doesn't feel like a great sign that the first party conference after 14 years of opposition has a government defeat on probably its most prominent decision so far).

Long term sickness is broadly historically a stable number, but there's been a big increase since the pandemic. I assumed this was actually just long covid showing up in the statistics (and I think that's part of it), but it isn't because the only big country economically with a lower participation rate now than in 2019 is Britain. Obviously long covid is not confined to here.

So there is a particular issue here - my guess is that a lot of it is the NHS waiting list after basically almost all other treatments got pushed to one side for a year and the NHS hasn't running at capacity because of the pay disputes and doctors' strikes. Now a pay deal has been done (though note the nurses rejected theirs), hopefully it will be possible to start cutting the waiting list. But I think it is right and important that people who are otherwise working age get the treatment first and support (occupational health) etc to get back into work.

Separately on pandemic impact I know of two people through colleagues and friends who had hospital appointments cancelled during the pandemic because the NHS was basically entirely focused on covid and everything else shut down, who have since had diagnoses of quite late stage cancer that should have been caught earlier. I think we'll see more of that (and not just cancer) from the long term impact of the pandemic on the NHS.

I am starting to get worried. He and his cabinet seems far more occupied with being a capable Tory government than a Labour one. That was a necessary shtick for the election but that's over they have won.

I don't think it's that entirely - I think it could be worse

A lot of the criticism I've had and others have is focused on comms. They're not saying what they're doing and why it's just "everything's shit, it's worse than we thought, so we're taking away a benefit for 70% of pensioners". At best they're explaining the policy rather than how it is helping do x or move to y (honourable exception for Ed Miliband - despite some concerns). I saw a defence by a former Labour Spad with good contacts that basically this is because - as is the case 90% of the time in politics - it's what they actually think. Apparently the mood in government is really despondent and doom and gloom. They think things are worse than they expected etc - so the comms reflects the government.

And I think that gets to a slightly bigger problem which was regularly flagged about Starmer as leader - what's it all for? What is his vision? And my fear is that mood and those comms reflect the fact that they don't really have a strategy/plan or if they do, they don't actually believe in it. I keep thinking that everything he's doing makes perfect sense if you get appointed as Director of Public Prosecutions (or any other senior role): keep spending under control while you do a budget review, kick off other reviews of what's working/isn't, develop a strategy and implement. I think anyone who's been in a big organisation when there's change at the top will recognise a lot of this. The problem is I don't think that works when you're Prime Minister or any cabinet minister.

In government I think that just produces a vacuum. On the comms side, with nothing to report, journalists will dig into your declarations of gifts etc because there's nothing else to talk about really. But on the policy side I think it means the civil service will fill the gap with their preferences (and they'll also be very able to shape the output of all those reviews), because there's no clear political direction from the top.

Related to my concern about Rachel Reeves giving in to a long-standing Treasury bugbear, I'm a little concerned given how key planning is, that there was an article about how much everyone in the department likes working for Angela Rayner. Apparently she's quite hands-off and not a "micro-manager" like Gove, she's got rid of weekly update reports that Gove used to get every Friday and lots of delegation to the civil service and junior ministers. On the other side I would note that Rayner has said she's been chatting to "Govey" about her department.

My concern there is this is key to Labour's entire economic strategy and policy agenda for the next five years. I think the Secretry of State needs to really be driving that. But also whatever you think of Gove's politics, he's the most effective minister of the last 15 years in multiple departments. And part of that is perhaps the micro-management like update reports.

FWIW I think there is the outline of an idea from Starmer's speech, which I actually really like and think should be core to what they're trying to do. Which was this section:

Because if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that if you bury your head because things are difficult, your country goes backwards.

So if we want justice to be served some communities must live close to new prisons.

If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud. Do everything we can to tackle worklessness.

If we want cheaper electricity, we need new pylons overground otherwise the burden on taxpayers is too much.

If we want home ownership to be a credible aspiration for our children, then every community has a duty to contribute to that purpose.

If we want to tackle illegal migration seriously, we can't pretend there's a magical process that allows you to return people here unlawfully without accepting that process will also grant some people asylum. 

If we want to be serious about levelling-up, then we must be proud to be the party of wealth creation. Unashamed to partner with the private sector. 

And perhaps most importantly of all, that just because we all want low taxes and good public services that does not mean that the iron law of properly funding policies can be ignored, because it can't. We have seen the damage that that does and I will not let that happen again. I will not let Tory economic recklessness hold back the working people of this country.

My concern is that 6 months of drift and indecision and reviews will waste a lot of political capital (particularly if it's a cold winter) - when they need to be getting on with that and communicating it. So far there's lots of talk about difficult decisions, but not many actually being made and instead a lot of kicking things into the long grass/taking things a bit too leisurely in my view (especially given they've been out of office for 14 years - they should be chomping at the bit to do stuff).

Separately and just as a marker (and not to turn this into another Israel thread so I have nothing to say on the issue because I do not want to engage on that thread) but if Israel-Lebanon escalates, as it looks like it will, I think that will cause real problems for Starmer. The 2007 Lebanon War was a big part of why/how Tony Blair was removed and I think it could have an impact on Labour politics again - especially with Jeremy Corbyn coordinating but not (yet) forming a party with a number of the other Gaza independents, plus the Greens.

Edit: And I'd add on that - the Guardian had it as "Davos on Merseyside" given how many business people there were at conference. On The Rest is Politics Campbell said he'd heard from business people there that it all felt a bit flat, there wasn't much energy. Which I think is related - and I might always find stuff by any government annoying but I find this lack of urgency and sense of drift pretty unforgivable and extraordinary after 14 years in opposition. I don't understand it.

[crazy canuck]

I was thinking the same thing. And if centrists like us are thinking that, goodness knows what the left are thinking.

The right and left wing generally agree that it is better for people to be able to work.  They differ in how to achieve that. Typically the right wing says benefits should be cut to create the necessary incentive to work.  The left wing tries to identify the underlying health reasons people need the benefits and tries to address that so people can get back to work. I could be wrong but it looks like Labour is trying to do the latter?

The left wing view is people

[Sheilbh]

On the next scandal - this feels worth keeping an eye on. (Obvious spin on

Guardian story this morning:

Labour appoints Rachel Kyte to climate envoy role axed by Sunak
Appointee was a climate chief at the World Bank and will lead UK's return to high-level environmental diplomacy
Fiona Harvey in Liverpool
Wed 25 Sep 2024 06.00 BST

A former climate chief of the World Bank has been appointed to lead the UK's efforts to forge a global coalition on climate action, the Guardian can reveal.

Rachel Kyte, who previously served as special representative for the UN and a vice-president of the World Bank, will take up the role of climate envoy to lead the UK's return to the front ranks of global climate diplomacy.

Her role will be vital to the pledge made last week by David Lammy, the foreign secretary, that the UK would play a central role in tackling the climate and nature crises, in contrast with the previous government, whom he described as "climate dinosaurs".

The envoy role was axed by Rishi Sunak, to the anger of campaigners and dismay of foreign governments and allies. Sunak also snubbed international climate meetings.

Kyte, a veteran of international climate summits, and most recently a professor at Oxford's Blavatnik school of government, is widely respected among developed and developing country governments. She worked with many of them during her stint as chief executive of the Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

Kyte told the Guardian: "This government is committed to reconnecting the UK to the world with climate action as a priority. And the world is being shaped politically and economically by climate change. This provides an opportunity to use international action to help deliver on the UK's energy mission. And it provides challenges, not least in mobilising the financing to protect people and drive greener growth. There is no time like now for the UK to help drive action and I am excited to play my part in this new role."

Lammy and Ed Miliband, secretary of state for energy and net zero, will announce the appointment on Wednesday at New York climate week, where they are hosting an event on building a global clean power alliance.

Miliband will hold discussions with other governments on the need for vastly increased pledges of climate finance to the developing world. Poor countries want assurances that they will receive at least $1tn a year in assistance to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of climate breakdown.

Climate finance will be the main topic of what are expected to be fraught discussions at the next UN climate summit, Cop29, in Azerbaijan. Miliband will lead the UK's negotiations himself, in contrast with the previous government, in which it was left to junior ministers.

The diplomatic charm offensive has already begun, as Miliband welcomed the president of Cop29, Mukhtar Babayev, to London in July, and in August made an extensive trip to Brazil, which is the current president of the G20 group and host of next year's Cop30 climate summit.

Lammy will also, with environment secretary Steve Reed, appoint a nature envoy for the first time, to push for global action on protecting the natural environment, as the Guardian revealed last week. That appointment is not expected until next month.

Kyte, whose official title will be UK special representative for climate, will coordinate the UK's relations with other donor countries, as well as forging alliances with the poor world, and with the economic giants of the developing world, China and India.

Her appointment was welcomed by climate experts and campaigners. Edward Davey, UK head of the World Resources Institute thinktank, said: "Rachel is a giant and a ball of fire, with a vast hinterland of knowledge and experience and a global network of friends and allies. She will be brilliant and a force to be reckoned with."

Bernice Lee, research director for futures at the Chatham House thinktank, said: "Given what the foreign secretary just said about his priority of using climate and nature as a way to regain soft power for the UK and re-engage with the developing world, Rachel's extensive experience and network that came from her work with the developing countries and tackling investment challenges on the ground at the World Bank and UN mean she is an excellent fit for the role of climate envoy."

Followed by this from Michael Crick...

Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
Interesting.  Labour's new climate envoy Rachel Kyte is co-chair of climate advisory board of Quadrature Climate Foundation, linked to Quadrature hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands which invests in fossil fuel firms.  Quadrature gave Labour £4m on 28 May, at the start of the election campaign, a fact which only emerged a week ago.

That fact emerged because it was declared to the Electoral Commission - the donation was lawful, as was the declaration and it only being published now. But that's the largest single donation Labour have ever received. This feels like a very literal interpretation of the line about how the scandal is normally the cover-up - so if we declare everything (as required) then there'll be no scandal

Obviously not sure you can meaningfully call the last government climate dinosaurs given their record - although acknowledging that may be a bit uncomfortable:

[Tamas]

Sheilbh you missed the point. I agree with Starmer that both winter fuel payments and long-term sickness support (if it indeed creating abnormal results in the UK) should be reviewed and revised.

But if they are already in a pickle because they sound like they are damning the elderly to freeze to death then PERHAPS it is not the best timing to start sounding like they also want to force sick people back to work.

[Josquius]

On the winter fuel payments, isn't it true that the pension is going up £400 at the same time these £200 payments are being cut from many?

I really have to hope there's some thinking behind labour at the moment as it really does look a mess. Get all the bad stuff done early so nobody remembers it? First impressions don't exist?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm sceptical about this government but will reserve judgement until the budget on the 30th of October. I think that will be a very important ....for good or ill.

Concerning the "sick" and getting them back to work. I do feel that there is quite a lot of cherrypicking by employers who do not hire "difficult" employees and then plug the gaps with immigrant labour. If we can support people back into the workforce then the need for mass immigration will be reduced...so two birds with one stone. The punitive benefit sanctions regime needs to go, a lot more carrot and far less stick is required imo.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I also think that income and wealth inequalities are going to have very adverse effects on the size of the labour force in the next few decades. As boomers die some/many will leave substantial legacies to their children. These children will be able to take early retirement if they wish, typically these will be middle class people with professional jobs of course. This will place further burdens on the decreasing proportion who will continue to work. To some extent this process has already started.

[crazy canuck]

I also think that income and wealth inequalities are going to have very adverse effects on the size of the labour force in the next few decades. As boomers die some/many will leave substantial legacies to their children. These children will be able to take early retirement if they wish, typically these will be middle class people with professional jobs of course. This will place further burdens on the decreasing proportion who will continue to work. To some extent this process has already started.

A lot of boomer wealth is tied to the real estate they own.  Most estates will pay tax on the capital gain on the deemed disposition of the property* and so most of that property will need to be sold to pay the tax bill.  That will have two effects.  One, he said hopefully, is the increased supply will bring down prices somewhat.  Two, the after tax distribution to the beneficiaries of the estate will be a nice bit of cash, but likely not sufficient for the beneficiaries to pay off their own mortgages (and other debts) AND have sufficient funds to retire early. The amount of money will also be decreased if my hopeful point 1 comes to pass.

*assuming the boomer didn't structure their estate in such a way to avoid this tax liability.  But if they did we are talking about a small group of people that already have enough wealth for their kids to not have to work.

I think the main detrimental effect of the Boomers on the middle management ranks has already occurred.  They just didn't leave and so the Gen Xers and older Millennials had limited opportunities for advancement.  All of that is about to change.  For the Gen Zers the world is theirs to take as the Boomers are now finally leaving management positions. 

[Sheilbh]

I'm sceptical about this government but will reserve judgement until the budget on the 30th of October. I think that will be a very important ....for good or ill.

Yeah. Although worth noting that in general UK projected to have growth this year and next in the second tier of G7 countries (with Canada and France, behind the US, but ahead of Japan, Germany and Italy).

And in that context I saw two stories this week in the Guardian on business sentiment and consumer sentiment where the decline was directly linked by a lot of analysts to downbeat language from government, lots about "difficult decisions" increasing expectations of cuts to investment and tax rises. I don't buy the "talking the country down" for 99% of politics - but I think it is probably a real thing for the Chancellor.

On a more positive note - this in the Times makes a lot of sense:

Rachel Reeves hopes for £50 billion windfall with fiscal rules rejig
The chancellor will ask the Treasury to examine borrowing rules before the autumn budget, which may allow the government to fund large-scale projects
Oliver Wright, Policy Editor |
Mehreen Khan, Economics Editor
Thursday September 26 2024, 8.20pm, The Times

Rachel Reeves will free up as much as £50 billion to spend on roads, housing, energy and other large-scale projects under plans being drawn up by officials.

The chancellor has asked the Treasury to look at changing the government's current borrowing rules that would hand her a windfall to fulfil Labour's pledge to increase investment in the economy.

The current system has long been criticised by economists for discouraging governments from making long-term investments that could grow the economy.

Senior government sources said that Reeves has now asked officials to draw up options for changing the way the government measures debt, which could allow the government to offset "assets", such the £236 billion owed in student loans, against the wider national debt — freeing up more money for investment.

Economists have calculated that if such rules had been in place at the time of the last budget it would have amounted to about £50 billion worth of additional headroom.

This would not only fund the new £7 billion national wealth fund and the £8 billion cost of Great British Energy but also free up billions of pounds to invest in other infrastructure priorities such as new rail and road links and capital investment in the NHS.

However, the move will not allow Reeves to increase day to day spending — for example by reinstating winter fuel payments — as Labour has pledged this must be met entirely from annual tax receipts.

In order to meet Labour's plans to increase day-to-day spending Reeves is widely expected to raise taxes on capital gains and change the rules around inheritance tax.

The plan comes as Reeves has been forced to reassess another key Labour budget measure after being warned that her plan to crack down on non-dom tax perks might not raise any money. Labour said it hoped to increase tax revenues by up to £1 billion a year by closing tax loopholes that allow some wealthy individuals living in the UK to register overseas for tax purposes.

However, the chancellor is now looking again at the policy, which was intended to fund universal school breakfast clubs and provide more hospital appointments. Reeves has been warned that, as currently designed, it could lead to an exodus of non-doms and potentially even cost the government money.

Leading organisations such as the International Monetary Fund are supportive of changes to borrowing rules that could "allow for public investment in a high debt environment".

This week, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said changing the fiscal rules in a manner similar to that which Reeves has asked the Treasury to examine "could strengthen the incentive for governments to focus on investing in high-quality projects".

Under the government's current fiscal rules, national debt has to be falling as a percentage of GDP on a rolling five-year basis.

But the system has long been criticised by economists for allowing ministers to "game" the system and for discouraging long-term investments.

One option being examined by the Treasury would be to move to a system that targets "public sector net worth", which calculates debt as the difference between the value of government assets and liabilities. At present, government debt does not take into account assets.

Another option would be to exclude certain potential liabilities from the calculation of government debt. This could include things like outstanding student loans and the government's stake in banks like NatWest — which are currently judged as debt rather than an asset that could be realised.

Treasury officials insist that no final decision has been taken and that debt interest payments from any additional borrowing would still have to be met from tax receipts each year.

Any changes would involve consultation with the government's independent budget watchdog, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Richard Hughes, the current head of the OBR, has previously backed new fiscal rules to "incentivise prudent investment decisions to address the long-term challenges facing the UK".

Reeves herself has made it clear that she supports changing the rules, telling a fringe meeting at Labour's conference in Liverpool this week that it was "important that we count the benefits of public investment and not just the costs of it", adding: "Other countries look at assets as well as liabilities, and we're looking at all of those things."

Isabel Stockton, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said they had calculated that either of the two new measurements would give the government scope for more investment.

"If Rachel Reeves were to change the measurement to either a system of net worth or net liabilities then that would give her significant headroom for investment beyond the current fiscal rules," she said.

"We calculate that if those rules had been in place for the March budget then the headroom would have increased by around £50 billion under both systems. Obviously the fiscal position will be different in October — but it does indicate the scale of the likely impact."

Tom Railton, director of the Invest in Britain campaign group, said the current fiscal rule "focuses too much on the short-term cost of investment and fails to recognise the substantial long-term benefits".

A Treasury spokesman said: "The budget will be built on the rock of economic stability, including robust fiscal rules that were set out in the manifesto. These includes moving the current budget into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues, and debt falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year."

I'd note this has been talked about as an option for months and given the OBR's research on capital investment they could also free up cash just by asking them to extend their projection/assessment period from 5 to 10 years.

On the other hand, after scrapping the super-computer in Edinburgh, I see the Treasury have called in the Transpennine electrification project to see if there are "savings" to be made. According to the FT, one of their sources "said the impetus was to slow down psending in order to hit short-term budgetary targets within the Treasury, even if that meant the project could costs more in the long run" (Unironically, abolish the: Met, Home Office, Treasury...)

I'd note that project was first announced in 2011 - it's been announced and cancelled about a dozen times since, despite overwhelming public support in the region and (I believe) a very, very high benefit to cost calculation by the Treasury (because it goes through multiple major cities and loads of commuter towns).

I've got a slight horror that they make the budgetary change and the Treasury announces that the only project worth investing in in the entire country is a Crossrail 2 new Tube line for London (where they just so happen to live and work ).

(I should say on the Transpennine - lots of the work is ongoing on either side of the Pennines. The bit that is routinely pushed back, scaled down, amended is the bit through the Pennines because it's quite expensive so causes the Treasury to get the vapours.)

[Sheilbh]

Glad to see this getting dunked on. Lot's of people just hate change and will use any old excuse to oppose it:

CPRE London
@CPRELondon
This is a truly shocking decision, enabling a wholly unnecessary expansion. A park gone forever. Unrecognisable. The public's rights completely ignored, the natural surface ripped out, replaced with engineered surface, roads, pathways and buildings; heritage and trees trashed.

The decision is actually relating to "Wimbledon Park" which is a private golf course, not a "park". The planning decision is to turn part of the golf club into a tennis club and the rest will actually become a public park, so the publicly accessible space will be increased (Also slightly love the idea that a golf course is a "natural surface".

Also have very little tolerance for the Campaign to Protect Rural England London branch

Relatedly after decades of rejecting plans for reservoirs, I see that in the extreme drought and water scarcity plans water companies are putting into place, one proposal is shipping water from Norway. One is now being built, but we need several more as there's been no new ones since 1993 - in the same period the population's increased by almost 20% - but planning is difficult, there's always lots of local opposition and also reluctance of the regulator to authorise the costs. There is movement now (new reservoir in Hampshire for Southern/Portsmouth to be in use in 2029 on current plans) but it feels, a bit like with energy, we're cutting it very fine....

[Admiral Yi]

Did you know that the greens on golf course originated from areas of pasture highland sheep nibbled down, and that sand bunkers originated from burrows that the sheep dug to get protection from the wind?

[Josquius]

I do hope they preserve some of the trees in there. Often seems there's this idea replacing a decades old tree with a new one is equally good.
But generally yes. Down with golf. Such a small minority of people served with such a vast area. No excuse for it in urban areas.
Sadly that small minority usually served by it lean heavily old and thus more likely to vote.

[Josquius]

Another angle on the starmer donations stuff.

If we want to drive good people out of politics, this is the way to do it.

It is bad enough that protesters can climb on Rishi Sunak's roof, drape the house in black cloth and walk away from court unpunished. But now Keir Starmer – whose north London home often had so-called protesters outside – is being criticised for trying to allow his son to prepare for his GCSEs in peace.

Yes, I accept that Starmer, as leader of the opposition, made a mistake in allowing Waheed Alli, the Labour peer, to pay for his suits and glasses. He enjoyed a personal benefit that he should not have done. He should also have paid for his own Taylor Swift tickets, supplied by the Football Association, which owns Wembley Stadium.

He has paid a heavy price for those errors, in that he lost the chance to reset the integrity of his government after the failings of the Boris Johnson administration. But we should leave his family alone.

As for Alli, what on earth is he supposed to have done wrong? He was a successful TV entrepreneur who supports the Labour Party and wants it to succeed. Of course, he is different from you and me because he has more money, but the principle of his support for the party is no different from that of any other party member or small donor.

Recommended
Letters: The RSPCA's anti-cruelty food labels are a disgrace
Starmer is right to grasp the nettle of benefits reform – even if it stings him
Starmer's speech finally gave us all a reason to commit to the struggle
He has a different relationship with ministers and the prime minister because Tony Blair put him in the House of Lords, presumably because he valued his judgement. Of course, Alli's donations to the party were hardly an obstacle to a peerage, and I am opposed to the House of Lords having any legislative function – but the idea that politicians cannot take advice from outsiders, some of whom may be rich, is not serious.

I do not know Alli, but I know people who speak highly of him, his work in the Lords, his commitment to Labour, and his generosity. One of them is Siobhain McDonagh, the Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, whose sister Margaret, a former general secretary of the party, was made a peer and was a friend of Alli's.

He lent Margaret £1.2m so that she could buy a house that would allow her sister to look after her as she was dying of cancer. It was extraordinarily generous. It was declared by Siobhain in the register of interests at the time and went unreported because there was nothing wrong with it.

The loan will be repaid when probate for Margaret, who died in June last year, has been granted. But meanwhile, because Alli has become an excuse for the Conservative press to attack Starmer, it has now been reported as if there were something sinister about it.

The Daily Mail has thrown it in with everything else. Alli was briefly given a pass to 10 Downing Street after the election. He lent Starmer his central London flat, inevitably described as a "penthouse", so that his son could study in peace. Before then, Starmer used it during the pandemic to record videos. So what? I mean, really: "So what?" to all of it.

Some of the criticisms of Alli, or of Starmer for accepting the offer of a convenient central London flat, are just silly. These are perks that are not available to "normal" people, it is said. But non-politicians don't have protesters and police camped outside their homes.

That is why I don't think it is wrong for politicians to stay in rich people's houses on holiday. Especially if there are children involved, as there were when Tony Blair did it. I don't see anything wrong with Angela Rayner staying at Alli's apartment in New York, either – even if the Mail does describe it in breathless estate-agentese as having "breathtaking views of the Empire State Building", with its own "gym, jacuzzi and pool".

As long as it is all declared – and another mistake Starmer, Rayner and Rachel Reeves made was the failure to make full and prompt disclosure – then we can all see and marvel at the generosity of Alli.

Recommended
Keir Starmer set out a realistic vision of a brighter future for Britain
The Vince McMahon allegations are wrestling's #MeToo moment
Like James Corden, I also had to give up taking Ozempic – here's why
His motivations are equally transparent. He has no business interests to secure – he made his money long ago. I am sure he wants to be liked and enjoys being a friend and adviser to the powerful, but he mainly wants a sensible, social-democratic Labour Party to win.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, wants to drive sensible people, especially those with young families, out of politics. We must not let it succeed.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-waheed-alli-gifts-glasses-taylor-swift-b2619447.html


Not completely without merit imo.
My first thoughts around all this stuff was that people complain about labour MPs getting free stuff meanwhile sunak doesn't need freebies.
Definitely something off about it being made such a huge deal when it's normal.

[Sheilbh]

People also complained about donor's paying for Johnson's wallpapers or holidays and I don't really see a difference between that and Lord Alli giving Starmer £30k for his wardrobe.

And even if there's some I can kind of defend (even if the actual or imputed value is high), like staying in someone's home or the clothes point, there's others I just can't. I believe we're now up to three cabinet ministers (including Starmer) who got hospitality tickets to Taylor Swift concerts.

Also this is all getting declared, like the Quadrature donation. It's within the rules which I think is the point - the rules aren't the same as what's right, or perceived as right, or politically wise. And Starmer doesn't seem to perceive that there's a difference.