Bye bye Starmer

[Rich B]

i used to milk the free golf/drinks/trips from subcontractors. it doesn’t make the slightest difference when i select who i use for a project though - the best bid (competency then cost) always wins.

i still want to get one of them to take me on a palmer day…

edit - thinking back, the last big one was a trip to Prague to go to an AC manufacturer last year. it was a great trip, but i’ve not given them anything new since because they fucked up the last two jobs before that.

[Nefarious]

Newt may be able to confirm or deny, but I believe it used to be rife in the NHS. Pharma companies taking buyers (and to a lesser degree, GPs) on expensed jollies under the guise of conferences, that just happened to be hosted in fancy hotels in exotic locations.

They tightened everything up about 10 years ago and just said no gifts beyond trivial merch, no accepting of hospitality, and any expenses have to be directly related to the professional purpose of the event (so a big no for travel and accommodation expenses). Doesn't seem beyond the wit of man if there's any actual will to chance the way things are done.

But the situation is similar to the MP expenses "scandal" a few years ago. MP's collectively asked for a pay rise and were actively told that the optics would be bad for a blanket pay rise, just make it up in exes instead. So they did. All (well, mostly) within the letter of the pre-exisiting rules. And then the red tops tore them to shreds for claiming for what were perceived to be trivial items (John Prescott's loo seat springs to mind).

If you're an MP and object to this sort of thing (either corporate shmoosing or generous expenses), there is a correct set of channels for changing the official system. What you don't do is pick up the phone to your favourite Daily Mail tittle-tattle monger and get them to smear people sticking to the (admittedly morally questionable) rules.

[240PP]

Newt may be able to confirm or deny, but I believe it used to be rife in the NHS. Pharma companies taking buyers (and to a lesser degree, GPs) on expensed jollies under the guise of conferences, that just happened to be hosted in fancy hotels in exotic locations.

Glaxo got fined massively for doing just that. This was in the US, admittedly, but it goes on.

“The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... aceuticals

[ZedLeg]

Schmoozing GPs was a primary tactic for Purdue when they were making Oxycodone the disaster it is today.

[GG.]

If you're an MP and object to this sort of thing (either corporate shmoosing or generous expenses), there is a correct set of channels for changing the official system. What you don't do is pick up the phone to your favourite Daily Mail tittle-tattle monger and get them to smear people sticking to the (admittedly morally questionable) rules.

What a load of balls. Often the best way of changing a system is the antiseptic of publicity - particularly where politicians will just stage a behind the scenes stitch up. Do you honestly think the expenses system would have been adequately reformed if it was just an in-house administered "adjustment" to the rules?

It is incredible how someone's preferred politicians being in power warps perspectives of right and wrong. If this were kickbacks to Tory MPs I highly doubt you would be saying they should go through official channels to get it changed (I don't remember anyone saying that about the press coverage of Boris' wallpaper). Politicians of all stripes are knee deep in this and clearly the system of just declaring what bungs you have received is not fit for purpose.

Gotta love that 5 nights in a private Manhattan flat over new years is worth "£1,250" Per night maybe...

[Rich B]

it’s still a pretty odd situation though. Everyones getting outraged about the donations of suits and posh clothes, but when parties are campaigning, their whole campaign is funded by donations. Would we rather that all campaigns were funded by tax payers and included in those budgets were allocated clothing allowances to ensure the leaders looked and dressed appropriately?

or

we can just have the whole campaign funded by donors as it is now, including some deciding to cut out the middle man and just donate the approximate suits/dresses.

to me it really isn’t a big deal. i can guarantee the rags would tear apart any potential leader who wore an M&S suit.

and as for the football box tickets - it doesn’t cost the tax payers more to have him sat in a box - and he’s our fucking PM - of course it’s appropriate for him to be in a box.

i think it’ll be eye opening when we get to see the pre 2019 gift tally - as all the papers keep saying his is the biggest figure since 2019…

[Jobbo]

If you're an MP and object to this sort of thing (either corporate shmoosing or generous expenses), there is a correct set of channels for changing the official system. What you don't do is pick up the phone to your favourite Daily Mail tittle-tattle monger and get them to smear people sticking to the (admittedly morally questionable) rules.

What a load of balls. Often the best way of changing a system is the antiseptic of publicity - particularly where politicians will just stage a behind the scenes stitch up. Do you honestly think the expenses system would have been adequately reformed if it was just an in-house administered "adjustment" to the rules?

It is incredible how someone's preferred politicians being in power warps perspectives of right and wrong. If this were kickbacks to Tory MPs I highly doubt you would be saying they should go through official channels to get it changed (I don't remember anyone saying that about the press coverage of Boris' wallpaper). Politicians of all stripes are knee deep in this and clearly the system of just declaring what bungs you have received is not fit for purpose.

Gotta love that 5 nights in a private Manhattan flat over new years is worth "£1,250" Per night maybe...

The problem is that the Labour government ministers are doing what the previous government should have done but didn’t: actually disclosing correctly. If your preferred government run roughshod over the rules, ignoring them at will, you get a massive landslide against them at the next election.

[GG.]

I think there needs to be a blanket rule that donations are made to the party and the party allocates any money as it sees fit - no personal donations or freebies whilst you are a sitting MP. That would pretty instantly mean there wouldn't be any fun trips to NY for NYE or ridiculous sums spent on donated clothes. It would just bring them in line with what most responsible corporates already do.

Also I take issue with the "disclosing correctly". Allocating £1,250 for a 5 night stay in a multi million dollar apartment in NYC is declaring but notifying a fabricated figure of the true cost - the minimum that you might get away with being plausible if someone just quickly glanced at an entry (and note - no details of whose apartment and the details of it was declared in that entry). I expect the true arm's length cost would be closer to £5,000 (or more!) than £1,000 which you would have thought would start raising many more red flags.

[Jobbo]

Better than failing to declare at all, as was commonplace. That’s why this same ‘scandal’ didn’t happen previously.

Stop the hand wringing.

[Nefarious]

GG - first up, how do you think the rules *do* get changed other than via the HoC? Last time I checked, public opinion didn't have any actual legislative power.

I also think the public opinion is an awful yardstick the judge the legitimacy of this by - for exactly the reasons you say, people are partisan and will tend to be understanding to their preferred party and all hand-wringy towards everyone else. And people tend to get most upset about the things that are actually the most trivial (e.g. loo seats) because they feel like the biggest insult.

Secondly, as I wrote in my previous post - there is a massive difference between corporate schmoosing (even extravagant schmoosing) and outright fraud (e.g. getting a major party donor to make you a 6 figure personal "loan" that you then *forget* to pay back). I personally think it should all be banned, along with party donations (I would advocate a system whereby party funds were centrally allocated based on share of the popular vote), but if we are going to have a system that allows "minor and inexpensive" gifts, let's not use that to conflate accepting a fully declared gift of a suit with behaviour like setting up a network of false companies to preferentially bid for government procurement contracts and defraud the public purse on a wholesale basis.

And WRT your accusation that I'm being partisan about this - I have railed publicly before against what I see as low and medium-level mutual back scratching baked into the system (i.e. gifts and party donations), irrespective of party colours. I have raged against the open industrial-level corruption of the previous government and will rage equally hard against this lot if they get up to the same.

And just for clarity on my own political leaning - I have no dyed-in-the-wool political affiliation. I am a pragmatist and a utilitarian (with a bias towards marginal disutility of income), which would naturally place me slightly right of centre. I have opined before that I see our elections as a choice between outright thieves and well-meaning idiots. Yes, Labour got my vote this time, but mostly through a total lack of any other even vaguely viable alternatives.

[Rich B]

I think there needs to be a blanket rule that donations are made to the party and the party allocates any money as it sees fit - no personal donations or freebies whilst you are a sitting MP. That would pretty instantly mean there wouldn't be any fun trips to NY for NYE or ridiculous sums spent on donated clothes. It would just bring them in line with what most responsible corporates already do.

yep, i don’t see any issue with that as a rule. But obviously that’s not the rule currently.

[Nefarious]

As mentioned above, I am wholly supportive of a no gifting/no donations system, but there are some practical implementation issues. For example, I believe the popular work-around for not being allowed large brown envelopes of cash is to offer lucrative directorships/consultancy/speaking gigs after MPs leave office. Sign off on £5bn on military contracts, then oh, five years later, lo and behold you're the best qualified person in the country for a £1m per year executive appointment to the board to an apparently unrelated company that bizarrely involves no actual material work.

[Jobbo]

Glad we can ignore the nonsense spouted by people like Farage - investors seem to like the new-found stability:

[MikeHunt]

And just for clarity on my own political leaning - I have no dyed-in-the-wool political affiliation. I am a pragmatist and a utilitarian (with a bias towards marginal disutility of income), which would naturally place me slightly right of centre. I have opined before that I see our elections as a choice between outright thieves and well-meaning idiots. Yes, Labour got my vote this time, but mostly through a total lack of any other even vaguely viable alternatives.

Im with you here.

[IanF]

https://news.sky.com/story/rosie-duffie ... p-13224014

[Jobbo]

She’s resigned over something which was a manifesto commitment. She shouldn’t have stood if she didn’t believe in the manifesto. Says more about her than Starmer.

[Simon]

Even as a small c conservative, I still think Starmer is principled decent man surrounded by a stunningly average and inexperienced cabinet, with barely one or two exceptions.

[ZedLeg]

Rosie Duffield quits, Labour must not hate trans people enough yet.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lem-labour

[Jobbo]

That was the subject of Ian's link. She's hardly a loss, is she. Hypocrite standing for Labour in the first place.

[ZedLeg]

Ah yeah missed that.

I’m sure she already has an office reserved on Tufton St.