Insane.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Insane.
You would imagine Starmer would be earning a fair amount more if not in politics.
I don't have a problem with Sue Gray getting paid the maximum she is entitled to get. I am surprised that the PMs salary is so relatively low, and the job should be better paid. And maybe his wife should get expenses if she is acting in a public capacity. But he shouldn't be accepting personal freebies like this.
She isn;t really getting paid more than him.
Unless two free houses and all the running costs plus state funded transport are a zero worth benefit.
He’s living rent free and gets gifted mansions to holiday in. He’s paid more than her.
There are a number of local authority Chief Execs who get paid more than the PM. It's a bit of a non story but the timing isn't great with the other stories.
I mean low relative to other senior public roles. Not just compared to Sue Gray.
The low salary 'worked' when you had incredibly wealthy aristocrats in the role, or Walpole embezzling the country's wealth, or the embodiment of 'good chaps' like Eden and Macmillan.
Any salary increase for ministers must be coupled with a ban on these 'gifts' and also a ban on political lobbying. I wouldn't mind seeing public funding of parties (extending Short money) and a ban on big donations too.
Maybe it's just me but if he's a sports fan then to me it looks like a perk of the job. From what I gather the previous PMs were hardly into sports to be going so often. I know with Arsenal, it's the club who directly offered him the hospitality tickets, not some donor trying to get a favour out of him.
I read the other day that the PMs pay in 1937 inflation adjusted, was something like £500k in today's money.
What’s this even supposed to mean?
Take that list a relate it versus some of the names holding those offices in the last 10yrs.
Nadine Dorries as DCMS
Mogg as Business Secretary
Hunt as Health and then Chancellor
Zahawi as Chancellor and Education
Braverman, Patel as Foreign secretary
It’s already a marked improvement.
800k in 1937 when it was introduced. It wasn't increased until the 1960s. There also isn't a clear record of who did and didn't claim it all, but I have read that Macmillan and Douglas-Home did not, due to them being astonishingly wealthy to start with.
Yeah. Tax haven based hedge funds should not be able to donate to political parties. But starmer welcomes them.
He's boris johnson with a better hairdresser.
He's boris johnson with a better hairdresser.
And how much is Tony Blair earning nowadays? It isn’t just about a PM salary.
Starmer is a careerist because he lacks principles and his politics are entirely malleable to whatever is expedient at a given time.
Starmer probably went to the Murdoch summer parties for the free food.
£35,000 in just football tickets is truly insane
Not even seen them win a trophy for all that either.
The annoying Tory lady is correct. For the hours she worked at McDonald’s she was working class.
Anyone that holds an S&P 500 tracker fund in their ISA has 'links to fossil fuels, arms manufacturers and private health companies' by that same logic. As for the Caymans, it's a British Overseas Territory- we moan about these tax havens, but we're the masters of creating them.
‘I’m selling 35 of my 65 rental homes – this is only the beginning under Labour’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/selling-35-rental-homes-labour-not-only-one/Sounds like a big capital gains tax windfall for the treasury.
Such a shame that 35 houses will no longer exist
Did her family go bankrupt and move to a worse area, then she was forced to get a job at McDonalds to pay towards the house or was she just doing it for pocket money and she could quit happily at any time with resources to protect her lifestyle at home?
It's terrible that under the Labour policy of doing nothing to help people, Landlords are going to have to investigate damp and mould and pest infestations within 14 days.
More importantly, could they afford Sky tv?
You actually believe that!?!?!
So what, she's working class during the shift from 08:00-17:00 and then middle class from 17:01-07:59 when she's off the clock?
Would that also work if you went to Eton but worked part-time at Pret-a-Manger?
You actually believe that!?!?!
So what, she's working class during the shift from 08:00-17:00 and then middle class from 17:01-07:59 when she's off the clock?
Would that also work if you went to Eton but worked part-time at Pret-a-Manger?
I know the British class system is actually pretty ill defined and very 'you know it when you see it' but that's the funniest interpretation I've heard
Probably some posh kid working for pocket money while living with mummy and daddy who have a nice house and car with good jobs and savings and a nest egg waiting for her but she's temporarily working class for the hours she's working though she doesn't need to, while most of the others there do
Or so-called 'hazards' which the story insists on using quote marks for.
“Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well, I have others “
You could apply that quote accurately to almost any politician though…….
When the rich are having to sell their kidneys, then they have a right to complain.
Are these people also specifically residing in the cayman islands to avoid UK tax?
They don't want to pay in, but are happy to buy policy to benefit them. They are laughing at you, and the response is
'please sir can I have some more'
Get some self respect lad.
I'm just pointing out that the attack line they're using is weak. The whole party donor scheme is grubby as hell, not denying that, but branding a quant fund an arms and oil merchant is a tad hysterical.
Cayman is favoured by hedge funds cos it has more relaxed regulations than say the EU, eg on leverage and concentration risk. The hedgies will still be subject to tax on their money in whatever jurisdiction they live in.
It's insane how much it costs to watch villa in the champions league
All fair, but I do expect a Labour PM, and a Labour Party to be the change I want to see in the world.
I’ve made a conscious decision to ensure my pension contributions are made into a pot that doesn’t invest in a whole litany of sectors.
The idea that the Prime Minister of the UK couldn’t enforce the same kind of rules, and reset internal British politics is for the birds. It should be a hard rule that no Labour party funding is garnered from clear line of sight arms sale funding/investment.
The whole world of investment is interwoven and hard to unpick, but there are very simple ways to hold principles in this space. Its close to impossible to work out how clean a pound note is, but a little effort would go a hell of a long way.
So, do you think the fact that people with businesses based in tax havens like the caymans can shower the prime minister with millions of pounds without consequence, and the continued existence of such tax havens, is completely unconnected?