Labour’s cronyism excuse has BLOWN UP their big election promise

  • Post last modified:September 22, 2024
  • Reading time:13 mins read


Labour ran their successful election campaign on the promise of ‘CHANGE’. ‘Change’ is a straightforward word with a well-understood meaning – a clear promise to do things differently. Mere weeks into this Labour Party government’s first term, however, we already have ministers irritably excusing more of the same:

Oh dear.

Turns out the ‘change’ they meant was fistfuls of ‘loose change’ being stuffed into the designer pockets of their crony-bought clothing.

One rule for us, one declaration form for MPs

Interviewed on Saturday 21 September, culture secretary Lisa Nandy said:

We don’t want the news and the commentary to be dominated by conversations about clothes.

We rightly have a system, I think, where the taxpayer doesn’t fund these things. We don’t claim on expenses for them. And so MPs will always take donations, will always take gifts in kind.

MPs of all political parties have historically done that and that is the system that we have.

Most people don’t have their clothes bought for them by the taxpayer; do you know how we solve that problem? We buy our own clothes.

Also, let’s not forget the average salary for 30-60-year-olds in this country is £37-40k; the wages for people in government are as follows:

  • Prime minister: £75,440.
  • Cabinet minister: £67,505.
  • Minister of state: £31,680.
  • Parliamentary under-secretary of state: £22,375.

This is money they receive ON TOP OF THEIR MP’s SALARY OF £85,584.

These amounts are also on top of the various things they can claim on their expenses.

In other words, the idea that government ministers have no option but to create obvious conflicts of interest if they want to leave the house fully clothed is ridiculous.

Nandy also said (emphasis added):

We rightly have a system, I think, where the taxpayer doesn’t fund these things. We don’t claim on expenses for them. And so MPs will always take donations, will always take gifts in kind.

MPs of all political parties have historically done that and that is the system that we have.

There’s that famous ‘change’ we were promised!

Deputy PM Angela Rayner made a similar point when interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg:

I get that people are frustrated, in particular the circumstances that we’re in, but donations for gifts and hospitality and monetary donations have been a feature of our politics for a very long time.

She understands why it’s wrong but that’s the situation, sadly – IF ONLY LABOUR HAD THE POWER TO CH-CH-CHANGE IT!

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson admitted taking a £14k donation from mega-donor lord Waheed Alli (although she denies that the party which took place before her 40th birthday was a ‘birthday party’). Phillipson excused taking the money as follows:

Look, the reason that we can have this conversation is because colleagues have followed the rules. I’ve followed the rules. I’ve set out in the register of interests what donations were [and] who they were from, and that’s there for the public to see.

Look, the carbon which was released into the atmosphere was all done so perfectly legally – why are people complaining about climate change? The filth in our rivers and seas was dumped there as permitted; why is everyone complaining about privatised water?

It’s legal.

They legalised it.

You can’t mad at them for doing something wrong if they make it legal.

A bribe by any other name

Labour’s argument is that ‘donations’ aren’t ‘bribes’ because donations are declared and transparent while bribes are undeclared and murky. Functionally, though, what’s the difference? Either way, politicians are accepting valuables from mega-rich donors who want something in return. The only meaningful difference is that we’ve created a bureaucratic process which allows MPs to rubber stamp their ill-gotten gains ‘NOT-CORRUPT’.

This fact has not gone unnoticed:

There are some remaining Starmer supporters who seem happy to torch their reputation on a man who clearly has no respect for them. After all, if he truly cared for his defenders, he’d make some effort to behave defensibly:

People are noting why the Starmer-defenders are mistaken. It’s not because the media is being less lenient towards Labour than it was towards the Tories – a given in British politics – it’s because refusing to ‘change’ what’s actually wrong with this country is indefensible:

The funny thing is that Labour knew this stuff was wrong when they were out of office; why the surprise now they’re in?

Rayner in particular had a bone to pick with the Tories and their rampant cronyism, and she was right to pick it. Let’s hope this spirit reawakens:

 

The more things change

Here are just some of the times Starmer robotically repeated the word ‘change’ over the past few months:

The change we got?

  • Replacing austerity-for-most with austerity-for-most-but-especially-old-people.
  • Replacing cash-for-access scandals with designer clothes-for-access scandals.
  • Replacing the hostile Rwanda scheme with a hostile Italian job.

How is all this anti-change going down, you ask?

No matter what Labour does, the right-wing press will ruthlessly go after them. Given that, their only way of winning and maintaining public support is to act in the public’s interest.

This should be obvious.

The fact that Labour is pushing ahead with unpopular reforms while accepting money from the billionaires who’ll benefit suggests  they genuinely don’t have the public’s interest in mind – no matter how officially they declared their intentions.

Featured image via Labour (YouTube)





Source link

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,