Anonymous
Listen I remember when, in 2019, a female SNP Glasgow Lord Provost was reported by The Daily Record for claiming for 23 pairs of shoes on expenses and it was a very big story on the BBC Website for Scotland.
In defence it was stated on the BBC website that:
“Her role incurs personal expenses as she is required to represent the city at hundreds of events” and it was also stated that “there was no accusation of impropriety against the Lord Provost of Glasgow Eva Bolander”.
“The money spent was within the civic allowance allocated to the council by the Scottish government”
However the BBC article also stated that :
“The issue here is whether the amount spent on clothes was necessarily politically wise at a time when local government continues to face tough financial choices”.
“For opposition parties, the story seems like an open goal. Try justifying spending on clothes to someone unhappy about a cut or an unfilled pothole“.
“The question is whether spending this amount of money on clothes is an appropriate use of public resource – does it send out the right signals about the administration in Glasgow or about local government in general? This is to a large extent about the optics”.
This BBC article then proceeded to note the ” the council also came under fire for accepting a Rolls Royce Ghost for use as the Lord Provost’s car by an anonymous donor at a time when it was preparing to increase nursery fees by 57%”.
This was then revealed to have been “donated by Boyd Tunnock owner of the Tunnock’s biscuit business” (as in he who was and still is supportive of the Tories and the UK and not supportive of the SNP or independence).
“The businessman said he just wanted to do “a good thing” for the city”
Former Labour MSP James Kelly said about the Lord Provost that “her position was not tenable” and also said “”While services for homeless people across Glasgow are being cut, the SNP Lord Provost has been touring the city in a grotesque spending spree at the taxpayers’ expense”.
Tory MSP Annie Wells ” “For any politician to think they can claim something like this on expenses is a joke”
Both said she , the Provost, should resign, which let’s be honest is both Labour & the Tories answer to everything relating to any politician within the SNP.
So I am sure James Kelly would be one of many who would see nothing wrong with news that Keir Starmer and his wife (?) accepted yet more money from a Labour donor who was also a Labour peer for clothing at a time when it was also recently reported his, Starmer’s, government was going to keep the Tory two child cap policy and also cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners (apart from those on benefits).Then Annie Wells would be happy to defend Boris Johnson’s spending spree in Downing street decor (as noted above by Bob Lamont).
Imagine if instead of ‘expenses allocated for a clothing allowance to represent the city as Lord Provost’ this Glasgow provost had instead accepted thousands of pounds donated from a wealthy SNP donor. what media and opposition response would there have been then ?
Most certainly would not have been, in that scenario, a case of ‘nothing to see here all above board and so acceptable’.
Looking good and presentable for an ‘elevated role as a politician’ seems ok up to an extent.
However there should be a limit on amount that is spent, even at times a cut to the clothing allowance when times are hard as the optics and morally it does not look good if your council are making cuts to services while you are spending what seems like an excessive amount on clothing.
However that also works at every political level.
It seems that the UK PM and his wife can spend money donated by Labour Peers to look good for the UK .
Indeed David Lammy defended this yesterday and he said that they ” accepted donations of clothing so they could “look their best” to represent the UK“.
He, Lammy, also said “other countries had generous taxpayer-funded budgets for leaders’ clothing”. (well he, David lammy, better not tell former Labour MSP James Kelly about that especially now with the cuts being made by Keir Starmer).
It was also reported in January this year that before he became the PM Keir Starmer “flew in a private jet paid for by Qatar to visit the country’s leader last month, according to parliamentary records”
This was so that he could, as Labour leader, be able to ” attend the COP28 climate conference held in Dubai” and that “declaration of financial interests showed that the trip for him and three staffers cost £25,508”.
So the poor Millionaire Keir Starmer wanted the job and took the job of PM but needs someone to pay for his and his wife’s clothes and this then should be filed under ‘nothing to see here’. (rinse and repeat I am sure for many a Tory PM also).
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Lady Provost resigned. Time for Starmer to go. The trougher, greedy Labour warmongerers. Same old, same old. No change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now would be an appropriate time for the new Labour PM to CHANGE the rules governing ”donations” and allow poor politicians , like him , to receive as many ”gifts” of clothing as he ( and his missus ) require . He could start at the nearest Salvation Army Charity shop , then on to The Red Cross shop , followed by Cancer Research and The British Heart Foundation .
With over 11,000 Charity Shops in the UK I am sure that a struggling individual such as PM Starmer , who it appears cannot afford to clothe himself , would find many benevolent outlets able to help him and his wife in their time of need .
LikeLike
There is a very good line in Munguin’s New Republic. “What do you call a man who lets another man buy his wife underwear?”
LikeLike
🤣
LikeLike
It now appears there will be no investigation on Keir Starmer and the (latest) reported donations from the Labour donor who is also a Labour peer .
SKY News website today:
“Parliament’s standards commissioner will not be investigating Sir Keir Starmer for declaring late that his biggest personal donor, Lord Alli, paid for a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for Lady Victoria Starmer, Sky News understands”
Well no change there then from what we often heard about when the Tories were in power as in when many supposed ‘errors’ and ‘oversights’ remained unpunished by the Parliament standards commissioner’ as in another “Nothing to see here’ situation.
In fact this new supposed ‘oversight’ by Labour almost seems somewhat Déjà vu as a situation involving a Tory UK government and also as a response from the ‘WM Parliament standards commissioner’.
It seems to be that the different parliamentary watchdogs of different parliaments also seem to react differently at times (too many times it seems) in what they see as worthy of an investigation.
MSM Monitor observed this in a tweet yesterday:
“Yes, two different parliaments, but why was the SNP investigated after an anonymous and completely baseless complaint about postage stamps – replete with BBC smears – yet Keir Starmer avoids an investigation despite admitted undeclared donations of tens of thousands of pounds”?
Indeed but then one could also state that in respect to a compare and contrast there are three different parliaments as in the UK, Scotland and Wales.
The UK and Wales both have pro UK political parties as a government and Scotland has a ,as recognised by the public, pro independence party as a government .
So that is why we then often see and hear the BBC here and also the majority of other media in Scotland, who are all pro UK , often try at times to defend or excuse supposed ‘mistakes’, ‘oversights’ or even ‘poor performance’ by any pro UK party as one of the governments within the UK .
(Or ignore them completely as a political story especially as a media in Scotland in fact it is a well known behaviour from the BBC here in Scotland to often do just that).
However for the pro UK media then these same ‘rules’ or same behaviour will not ever be applied for the SNP in any smear or scandal that they , as a pro UK media, can concoct and link to them, the SNP, as a party.
Indeed as a presentation style the media tend to somewhat sensationalise a political story connected to the SNP.
They also have a tendency to be (way too) repetitive in their (excessive and prolonged) coverage on the same political story that they link to the SNP . (Rehashed as a story to within an inch of it’s life (span)).
Indeed the pro UK media always choose to (over) promote #SNPBAD and so are basically then seen to be often “over-egging the pudding” so to speak upon any political story.
There is no fairness ,or at times honesty, in many of the pro UK media’s coverage of political news especially Politics in Scotland and so it also seems to be the case for the judgement of different parliament standard commissioners in different UK parliaments.
Of course the key factor to always remember and focus upon is that the media , as a media, have a job to do as far as Scotland is concerned.
That job is to try and convince voters in Scotland to stay onside with the UK and also then be opposed to Scottish independence.
That involves them as a media (especially in Scotland but not just exclusive to Scotland) needing to do these specific things for many Pro UK political parties
Defend them
Lie for them
Omit any bad news relating to them
Promote them and their policies
While the opposite is the case for the pro independence political parties , especially the SNP, indeed the media go even further in that they are proactive in seeking out stories from individuals whose political allegiance is never noted but who are only too happy, as individuals, to promote their own personal #SNPBAD story or #SCottishGovernmentBad story on a MSM news channel.
So I wonder then what does the WM UK Parliamentary Standards commissioner think is best practise by them for the WM political system ?
What do they, as a Standards commission, choose to pursue or ignore and would a succession of political investigations (scandals) then put the WM parliament into disrepute as a parliament as far as it’s reputation was concerned.
Q’s Q’s that will go unanswered and will never be vigoursly pursued by much of the MSM as it’s the wrong parliament and the wrong political parties as targets.
Plus if the SNP as the Scottish government even dare to forget their P’s & Q’s then some opposition party member demands an investigation and hey presto that is then what we get !
(Remember the more parliamentary investigations you are able to rack up against the SNP as the Scottish government then the more they, as investigations, can then be used as examples in the future as supposed proof of #SNPBAD, even those investigations that proved pointless or fruitless as investigations in their conclusions).
I think we have to accept that Pro UK political parties are indeed many a time exempt from the majority of consequences that the SNP are far too often subjected to by both media and the parliamentary watchdogs in the UK.
What is really sad is that for some reason some people within Scotland either do not care about this as an injustice or are failing to recognise this as an actuality that exists in the UK via various behaviours from both Pro UK media and also Pro UK parliamentary watchdogs.
I do think that until the majority in Scotland actually realise all of this as a fact then we probably will not see any real progress in convincing them to support and vote for both pro independence parties and independence itself via a majority.
(More importantly that first they stop supporting and voting for Pro UK political parties and also stop supporting and voting to keep the UK state intact).
Simples (or rather it is, it seems, not so simple is it ?).
LikeLike
It was additional items which were declared late that the investigation was demanded on, a piece of political mischief via the Times.
Nothing would have been gained by an investigation, and nothing would have changed on this appalling MP arrangement over ‘gifts’.
LikeLike
SNP investigated over ‘misuse’ of election mail stamps
Sir Keir Starmer won’t face probe over late declaration of clothes donated to his wife
Funny old world doubt BBC Scotland will not be door stepping Starmer on this come on Bewes Lockheart where are you.
LikeLike
Here’s another (hollow) laugh and also a very familiar situation .
Familiar as in when a scandal emerged via a Tory PM (mostly with Boris Johnson) we would then see a Tory minister be trotted out to defend the PM on both MSM TV and MSM Radio programmes.
So Dame Angela Eagle was asked about Keir Starmer having money donated to him to pay for his “expensive” glasses by a Labour donor on a Times radio programme.
She , Dame Angela Eagle, then initially defended Keir Starmer in saying:
” I think the PM has dealt with this issue. We know about because he has been transparent about it. That is why you can talk about it now. The rules have clearly been followed”.
That was a lie for a start.
This story was exposed by the media and not , as she Dame Angela suggested as it being a “transparent action that was revealed by the PM “.
The Times radio presenter then asks her why, with his PM salary, shouldn’t he, the PM, then buy his own Glasses.
So she, Dame Angela Eagle, then completely changes tact and instead of continuing to defend Keir Starmer, she then says “Why don’t you ask him”.
The presenter then reminds her that he, Starmer, is not here but she is, as in the capacity of a government representative (Minister), as Dame Angela Eagle is the Minister of state for Border Security and Asylum.
She responds “I am but I am not responsible for decisions the PM makes”
Yet at the outset of this interview in her defending Keir Starmer, she was then taking some responsibility as one of his government ministers in trying to defend and justify his decision as the Labour leader and Labour PM in him accepting a donation to pay for his Glasses !
The presenter then said “no you are not” ” (as in wholly responsible ) “but you (Eagle) have an opinion”. He then asked her if she “buys her own glasses and should he, the PM, then not buy his own glasses “?
Apparently, for her, the PM has had his say on that ( so like any Boris scandal when he was the Tory Pm we should now, it appears, all just move on from it -as a scandal that is) and she then once again reiterated that she does not have an opinion on this.
Lie.
As clearly she does have an opinion on it hence her initially trying to defend it as a scandal and also him Keir Starmer at the outset of this interview !
The Times radio presenter then mentioned why he thought she really should have an opinion on this as he said when Angela Rayner was a shadow minister she tweeted this about a donation to Boris Johnson from a Tory donor
Her , Raynor’s, tweet stated ” What right does a man who complains he can’t live on £150 grand a year and asks Tory donors to fund his luxury wallpaper habit. What right does he have to lecture someone trying to survive on £80 a week”
(Indeed and the exact same Q should be put to Keir Starmer in him, as PM, talking about the ‘future hardship being needed to be applied and cuts made’ to those, within the UK, also trying to survive on meagre amounts when he, Keir Starmer, has an “expensive glasses habit” and it seems also an “expensive clothing habit” for him and his wife too. Which as habits are being well fed by Labour donors who are also, in some cases, Labour Peers ).
The presenter then said to her “That’s what Labour attacked Boris Johnson for doing and now you have someone (Starmer) who has a luxury Glasses habit whose taking money from pensioners and people are going to have an opinion on that”
Guess how she, Dame Angela Eagle, responded to that, as it was unbelievable, and also very much typical of the kind of response we used to hear from some Tory ministers when challenged on Boris Johnson’s bad habits.
She responded “Okay you’ve had your rant”.
Really ?
So you as a government minister do not see a reasonable Q needing to be answered by you on what is clearly Labour’s double standards .
As it seems that for Labour MP’s and Labour government Ministers it is seemingly okay to attack Tories on their bad behaviour but when Labour, via their PM, does the same then that constitutes as being a “rant” and so not worth responding to.
Sounds about right for Labour.
That is hypocritical behaviour that they< Labour, would very much deem as being unacceptable if a Tory responded to a Q in the same way as Angela (Dame) Eagle did in that interview on Times radio.
He , the presenter, did challenge her on this as in him saying “so no one in your constituency will question these donations” to which she responded “Well when I get back from Berlin and go to my constituency I will let you know”
Aye you do that pet but perhaps with less of an attitude, more professionalism and less expected exceptionalism to be applied to your party and leader as both the new government and PM.
Also let us all know when we will see, feel and witness as a behaviour and action any actual real tangible “Change” via Labour compared to that of the Tories when they were in power.
Of course Baroness Ruth Davidson has a slot (radio show) on Times Radio and Times radio is owned by Rupert Murdoch so perhaps some presenters on there may be less inclined to excuse Labour and their hypocritical past behaviour when the Tories were in charge of the UK as government.
Dame Angela Eagle proved that she, as a Labour government minister, was not up to the job of either deflecting or defending her party or her PM. I suspect she is not unique as a Labour politician in lacking these abilities.
As in no surprise there then.
I believe for Labour (like the Tories and Lib Dems) that they, as politicians, “Do not like it ** them” via the media (to quote a line spoken by Corporal Jones in Dad’s Army).
Mainly as they , Labour and other parties, have far less chance to practice and experience media attacks compared to the SNP who constantly are attacked by the (pro UK) media especially in Scotland.
#DameAngelaEagleFailed
LikeLike