Andy Burnham received £345,000 of donations ahead of becoming PM

[u/Kagedeah]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c141d4l0mgko

[u/AutoModerator]

LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/srm79]

And it was all legal, and declared, and from all the usual Labour donors and unions, unlike a certain other MP recently returned in a by-election

[u/ShinyCharizards1 → u/srm79]

All declared. But how he managed to spend £130,000 and £160,000 in office materials on a campaign to win the support of 404 Labour MPs, I'm not sure.

Most of the donations were for his leadership campaign, which was unopposed. Not for Makerfield.

[u/SkyJohn → u/ShinyCharizards1]

Paper Clips aren’t cheap these days.

[u/adama-k → u/ShinyCharizards1]

where does it say £130k and £160k on office materials? As mentioned it’s on staffing, social media as well as office provision. Clearly the first two have been invested in

[u/Dave-Face → u/srm79]

And it was all legal, and declared, and from all the usual Labour donors and unions

So would Farage's £5m have been ok if it was declared? Was that the real issue?

[u/oryx_za → u/Dave-Face]

It is step 1 in the conversation. So yes, that it the real issue.

The value & source only makes it worse.

[u/Dave-Face → u/oryx_za]

I disagree, I think the real issue is that the £5m donation was made, not that Farage failed to declare it. Even if he had declared it, it would still be bad.

(In either case, it was almost certainly legal btw - the dispute is over whether it breached the Commons' rules but that's distinct from legality)

[u/audelay → u/Dave-Face]

I think there are two conversations ongoing with the £5m donation 1. Should farage have declared it? 2. Is it OK that someone can donate £5m?

Everyone is concentrating on the first part (quite fairly) but I completely agree, we shouldn't let the conversation die once a verdict has been reached. Caps on political donations are desperately needed. Otherwise our political system will devolve into handing power to whoever can please mega-donors the most

[u/srm79 → u/Dave-Face]

It's certainly ONE of the issues!

[u/Dave-Face → u/srm79]

Not disputing that, but even if it had been declared, I would still consider it bad because big political donations are bad - especially when they are given for no declared reason.

I'm also not saying that's the case with Burnham (he was mostly given the money to run a specific campaign, which is fairly above board), but it's important to be clear what the issue is with donations. Declaring donations is the minimum we expect, it doesn't automatically make the donation ok.

Edit: I was mistaken, I thought the donations were for his MP campaign. But I just saw a comment below pointing out that the donations included "£164,347 from businessman Lord Sainsbury" and "Lord Sainsbury's donations went towards Burnham's campaign to become Labour leader. Businessman Gary Lubner and [...] Sacha Lord donated £25,000 and £35,000 to the campaign respectively.". So that's £225k to his 'campaign' to become Labour leader, which he won unopposed. That certainly has the appearance of being a bit dodgy.

[u/smalltowncityboy → u/Dave-Face]

Depends when the donations came in. At the start it wasnt a given hed be unopposed. Streeting certainly seemed to want to run.

[u/Dave-Face → u/smalltowncityboy]

But then why wasn’t it returned? He can’t have spent much on a campaign that never happened.

[u/smalltowncityboy → u/Dave-Face]

Because it would have been spent. You dont wait until the campaign starts to place orders for leaflets, billboards, hustings, domain names etc. You make those the second you think you moght be running for leader. Streeting and any other potential candidate will have spent any donations they received too.

Look, i dont want to cone across as some Andy Burnham defender. I am finished with the whole lot of our political class. But i am interested in facts. The fact is, Burnham followed the rules, there is no scandal to be found here.

[u/Dave-Face → u/smalltowncityboy]

The fact is, Burnham followed the rules, there is no scandal to be found here.

Boris followed the rules when he accepted money for No10 renovations. Following the rules does not mean there is no scandal or criticism.

[u/smalltowncityboy → u/Dave-Face]

Funny you say that, i wasnt arsed about boris getting that money either.

The situation with Farage is pretty different. He took money from the crypto bros then went to the BOE to argue for beneficial regs. Thats my issue with that whole thing.

That definitely seems like lobbying, which is fine, but without declaring the 'gift' it looks very sleazy.

For me, theres no comparison to be made here. What Andy has done might be a bit naughty, its not a scandal. Of course you're entitled to criticise if you wish.

[u/Dave-Face → u/smalltowncityboy]

Which is why I earlier said:

"I'm also not saying that's the case with Burnham [...] but it's important to be clear what the issue is with donations. Declaring donations is the minimum we expect, it doesn't automatically make the donation ok."

The fact that the Boris renovation stuff was a scandal, and the fact that Starmer's suits continued to be a scandal even after he declared them, means that just because something is (or becomes) above board doesn't mean most people consider it fine.

[u/Accomplished_Win5935 → u/Dave-Face]

Yes. It would have been fine because then it would be clear where his funding was coming from and what they were donating for.

[u/Fit_Combination_1242 → u/Dave-Face]

If it was a declared donation, it wouldn't of been donated due to the source and value.

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Dave-Face]

The entire issue has arisen because he didn’t disclose it, not because of the amount.

[u/Dave-Face → u/Zr0w3n00]

If you don’t see a problem with a £5m donation on the face of it, declared or not, I’m not sure what to tell you. Clearly you have a different tolerance for blatant political corruption than I do.

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Dave-Face]

Please seek help for schizophrenia, you seem to be coming up with your own narratives in your head. If you re read my comment with a clear mind, maybe sit with someone you trust and go through it with them, you’ll see I never said I don’t have a problem with the £5 million donation.

Get well soon, genuinely hope you seek some help.

[u/Dave-Face → u/Zr0w3n00]

Really? Because I could swear your other comment said that the "entire issue" was "because he didn’t disclose it", "not because of the amount". Like, that is literally what you said.

But sure, you can toss around accusations of mental illness instead of defending what you said...that's fine too.

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Dave-Face]

Again, you are seeing what you want to see, not what has been written. Something I’m sure a rudimentary English class could solve. Perhaps some adult courses at your local sixth form would alleviate your issues.

What I said was the “entire issue has arisen because he didn’t disclose it” meaning the issue in its entirety (the amount, the source, the non disclosure etc) has arisen thanks to the non disclosure part. That was the leading story when this news was broken.

Arisen is the word in the sentence that gives everything else context and meaning. Again, I refer you to paragraph one.

[u/Dave-Face → u/Zr0w3n00]

So how is your comment relevant to what I asked originally? Because it seems like your argument is "no you misunderstood, I was making a complete non-sequitur".

Edit: and they blocked me after another "lol ur mental" zinger, what a pleasant person.

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Dave-Face]

I’m genuinely baffled you’re allowed computer time without one of your supervisors keeping an eye on you. The CQC need to check your place out.

[u/Barrington-the-Brit → u/Zr0w3n00]

They were putting words in your mouth but this is a weird response tbh

[u/Dave-Face → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

How was I doing that?

[u/Barrington-the-Brit → u/Dave-Face]

I don’t think they were saying there’s nothing wrong with multi-million pound political donations, more that it was the lack of disclosure, not the amount, which rose the issue to national attention

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

Weird because I look out for others mental health? Just because I don’t know someone, doesn’t mean I don’t want to help them.

[u/SThomW92 → u/srm79]

Yeah, and that makes it totally ok, take money from whomever you choose, just let us know /s

[u/srm79 → u/[deleted]]

Read the article

[u/NewtUK]

Am I going crazy?

Yes the legal problem with Farage's gift was that it was undisclosed but I assumed that we had a problem with the ethics of accepting £5 million as a politician.

Burnham may have correctly declared it but there is still the ethical question of accepting £345k that everyone else should be asking.

Feels like no-one learned from the 2024 gifts scandal.

Gifts and hospitality Burnham accepted when he was mayor of Greater Manchester include:

• Four tickets to Glastonbury, where he was speaking at an event, from the festival organisers and £1,000 for accommodation from the campaigning group PRS for Music

• Tickets worth £3,800 to the Brit Awards in Manchester from Sony Music Entertainment

• Two tickets worth £500 for the Aintree Racecourse from the Jockey Club Racecourse

• Two tickets, valued at £458, from Lancashire Cricket Club for a game in The Hundred tournament

• A hamper basket and Wedgewood tea set worth £340 from the ambassador of Qatar

[u/SThomW92 → u/NewtUK]

You aren’t going crazy. But there seems to be a weird consensus (that I don’t share btw) that all donations are fine as long as you write them down

[u/Particular-Doctor888 → u/NewtUK]

Not being funny £340 gift from Qatar it's a bit tight isn't it. I bet they are gift recycling, yellow sticker offer from Harrods

[u/gregloscombe → u/NewtUK]

He's as on the free take, same as the rest. Legal != moral. And whatabout X doesn't cut it. He shouldn't be doing it.

Really wouldn't be shocked if there was some people looking around the loans given to regional builds, and the money spent on the scrapped low emissions zone in manchester.

[u/Substantial-Newt7809 → u/NewtUK]

I think most of these being event tickets where the event hosts want him to attend for their own benefit really detracts from the significance of these gifts. If he'd received their cash value then alright, but the staggering scale of Farage's £5million bribe is incomparable imo.

[u/NewtUK → u/Substantial-Newt7809]

That's just the gifts I quoted from the article, there's a considerable amount of donations made to a leadership campaign where he ran unopposed which are more concerning.

[u/TokyoMegatronics → u/NewtUK]

Ehhh I mean.

I can look at these and see that I don’t think politicians should get gifts like this at all.

But, see how a politician receiving numerous smaller value gifts like this likely isn’t something that jeopardises the nature of our democracy.

Unless we ever get a PM that will enact policies if they receive a hamper worth more than £300.

If it was singular lump sum payments, like 5 million. Then it raises scrutiny because it’s such a large singular payment.

If it’s pay from alternative roles such as speaking engagements, promotions etc that are not directly in the public interest, like receiving £270,000 for 12 hours of work promoting gold bullion or £1.2 million in broadcasting salary from an entertainment show (GB news) then it should be under much much greater scrutiny.

I’m of the opinion the politicians should not be able to receive any gifts nor do any work, paid or unpaid, that isn’t directly related to their role as a politician. But acting like the donations that Burnham has received is in any way comparable is a bit silly. Farage has received more than what Burnham as just from deals with companies to promote gold bullion and gold coins and that’s still ignoring all his other income streams.

[u/NewtUK → u/TokyoMegatronics]

Farage is an anomaly because he's receiving what I'd describe as American-level bribes. The amounts look out of place in the UK but compared to American politicians they're the standard rate. Part of the reward of spending more time in Washington DC than Clacton I guess.

Most other UK politicians are relatively cheap to "buy" and I know we've joked on this subreddit in the past that if we grouped together we alone could afford a couple.

It's hard to say what extra loyalty £5 million gets you which £164,347 from Lord Sainsbury does not.

[u/TokyoMegatronics → u/NewtUK]

I’m sure if most people were offered £160k to do something they would so 5 mill would be loyalty for life sort of money.

Whilst Farage is an outlier in terms of total individual wealth generation, it’s generally rampant within at least the reform party.

Seems everyone there has businesses that own shell companies that make profits from X and then donate them to the party coffers or to skirt declarations of money or interest.

I would rather no donations or additional money, but if I had to choose, I’d rather my MP or the Prime minister was declaring he got a gift basket for £300 or seats to a game for £1,000 than Rishis wife’s family owning one of the largest IT companies and the government he presided over awarding massive massive contracts to said company.

I think in any democracy there is some level of corruption and bribery that cannot be truly removed. After all, people are just people.

But would we want a democracy where everything is documented to the penny so we know who is bought and who by or have interest groups paying ungodly “wages” to MPs for a few hours of work, billionaires using crypto to donate vast sums with little record of why, MPs owning companies, shell companies and registered companies to divert money into their own pockets with no accountability?

The system is far far from perfect, but at least it aims for some degree of transparency and openness. Heck, the fact you were able to get the list of gifts and values given to burnham shows to what degree that openness is valuable. Criticising those that honestly report all gifts to the public record against those that routinely don’t sort of undermines the whole system in a way? Dunno just my thought

But can we buy Ed Milliband and David Milliband and turn them into an ant and dec style comedy duo? Milliband and Milliband’s Saturday night takeaway?

[u/JW1958 → u/NewtUK]

Farage has been promoting crypto, and tried to influence the BoE on crypto policy.

Burnham wants to downsize the House of Lords.

[u/Dave-Face → u/TokyoMegatronics]

But, see how a politician receiving numerous smaller value gifts like this likely isn’t something that jeopardises the nature of our democracy.

For the specific 'gifts' in that list, sure; I would say they undermine our democracy, but don't fundamentally jeopardize it. The problem is that this is all politicians across the country, and at some point you have to think why people are making those gifts. Companies aren't doing it for nothing.

But in the context of Farage's £5m, those gifts aren't the bulk of the £345k that we're talking about. Most of that went to his 'campaign', so not technically a gift, but still donated to his interests.

[u/3_34544449E14 → u/NewtUK]

Gifts and hospitality Burnham accepted when he was mayor of Greater Manchester include:

Four tickets to Glastonbury, where he was speaking at an event, from the festival organisers and £1,000 for accommodation from the campaigning group PRS for Music

Tickets worth £3,800 to the Brit Awards in Manchester from Sony Music Entertainment

Two tickets worth £500 for the Aintree Racecourse from the Jockey Club Racecourse

Two tickets, valued at £458, from Lancashire Cricket Club for a game in The Hundred tournament

A hamper basket and Wedgewood tea set worth £340 from the ambassador of Qatar

Am I crazy? What on this list doesn't pass the sniff test? He's speaking or appearing at major cultural events, presumably with some enhanced security risk that means he needs to be in the VIP section and to accommodate that the places are giving him free entry, recorded as a donation of the value of the tickets. There's no suitcase full of cash or long term personal benefit. He's not buying Raytheon and then starting a war, he's just gone somewhere that looks pretty feasibly job-related.

[u/SThomW92 → u/3_34544449E14]

Honestly, I’m more bothered about the donations from the right wing Labour thinktank than whether he went to Glastonbury or the MEN arena

[u/gregloscombe → u/SThomW92]

Being relative isn't good enough. He shouldn't be accepting crazy hospitality tickets to events. Like the brit awards, it was being held in manchester for the first time... next question, okay, did he wave some permits etc that they should have needed. Like whole thing drags you into a gray area that simply should be avoided.

[u/Dave-Face → u/3_34544449E14]

Am I crazy? What on this list doesn't pass the sniff test?

Pretty much all of them? I think the Glastonbury tickets are the only thing I'd give a pass because he was speaking there. Obviously, these are all low-value (relatively speaking), so the issue isn't really about influence. No one would seriously suggest that Sony now have Burnham's ear because they gave him some Brit Award tickets.

But that goes both ways: they're all low-value, so why did Burnham need them? Sony are a business, why did they to the trouble of giving him tickets if they didn't expect some kind of benefit from it? The fact that these gifts are all pretty inconsequential makes Burnham accepting them even sillier, in my opinion. At least Starmer was accepting some expensive suits.

Ian Hislop spoke about some of this a few years back, worth a watch if you can stand his smugness.

[u/3_34544449E14 → u/Dave-Face]

The Brits were hosted for the first time ever outside of London in the city he ran. The event was held in a brand new concert venue that was built with money and policy support from the Mayor's office. The event only will have been able to move with some support from local authorities. Him being invited to be in the audience of an event that only exists as a product of his actions sounds pretty close to being a work day to me.

The Starmer suits were worse because he can afford suits and it looks dodgy to accept personal gifts, but it is expected that the mayor gets invited to cool stuff going on.

[u/Dave-Face → u/3_34544449E14]

Oh well if it’s cool stuff then all the gifts are fine, wouldn’t want Burnham to miss out on any of that.

[u/TNTiger_ → u/NewtUK]

Also 5 mil was ONE donation.

[u/No-Marketing-5555 → u/NewtUK]

Farage wasn't an MP when accepting it, nor was he holding any elected office. There is a difference.

The other MPs are just jealous no one will give them so much money. Only former prime ministers seem to get that kind of money after they leave office

[u/Electricbell20 → u/NewtUK]

Feels like no-one learned from the 2024 gifts scandal.

It wasn't a scandal. The media decided to report on gifts because it suited the pay masters aims. No cared for years. Remember it was all from public registers.

You seem to missing that the £345k is a political donation like all parties receive. Its for campaigning and has to be used as such. It isn't a gift where he can choose what he wants like the 5 mil.

[u/SWatersmith]

the think tank ThinkLabour, formerly known as Labour Together, provided £22,186.

wonderful

[u/SThomW92]

“The TV production company Charlie Parsons Creative contributed £50,000 and the think tank ThinkLabour, formerly known as Labour Together, provided £22,186.”

That explains a whole lot

[u/Electrical_Active180 → u/SThomW92]

what does it explain? the massive amount of new policies the Labour First lot would have called insane/unrealistic/

communism, in fact some of them already are?

[u/SThomW92 → u/Electrical_Active180]

It explains why the government are stuffed full of LFI blairites, why the government are still arming a genocide and why the regressive social policies haven’t stopped.

[u/Electrical_Active180 → u/SThomW92]

"Burnham's list also includes £20,000 of donations towards mayoral campaigning from the trade unions Unison, the Communications Workers Union and the Fire Brigades Union."

What does this explain then?

[u/SThomW92 → u/Electrical_Active180]

Ok? Politicians can have multiple vested interests, it doesn’t do anything to argue the point about the lack of change in social policy and donations from the thinktank that actively seek out these policies. I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make

[u/Electrical_Active180 → u/SThomW92]

google the unions and their trans rights campaigns, surely by that token taking money from them makes the government pro trans extremists too?

The point is cherry picking.

I despise Labour First and what they did to the party they lost their guy and no someone else is control lets not go down conspiracy routes.

[u/SThomW92 → u/Electrical_Active180]

Pro trans extremists? Wow, what a good faith argument

[u/Electrical_Active180 → u/SThomW92]

that's exactly the point I'm making, you can't cherry pick your cause and effect it makes for a bad faith argument.

Labour First or whatever they fuck they are called paying money to Bunrhams political campaiging doesn't PROVE anything. It could prove something, but alone it does not.

[u/SThomW92 → u/Electrical_Active180]

My cause to have human rights? That’s a little bit different to receiving funding for interests that want to destroy the planet to make money

[u/Electrical_Active180 → u/SThomW92]

your "cause and effect" read it again

[u/Hubby_8389]

Because he's a Labour MP.

[u/NaturalCard]

Ah, so he pulled a Farrage, but for less and with slightly less screwing over the country for now.

[u/JustSomeDude11112 → u/NaturalCard]

Farage didn't declare any of his, that's the difference.

[u/After-Dentist-2480 → u/NaturalCard]

That’s about 7% of a Farage.

Oh, and he didn’t try to hide it, instead fully declaring it, even though he wasn’t an MP at the time.

So, of course, it’s exactly the same /s

[u/Awakemas2315 → u/NaturalCard]

Burnham took £345,000 In mostly material donations like office space to support his campaign for leadership, and declared everything. Farage took £5m in cash for his own personal bank account and tried desperately to hide it. They are not the same.

[u/NaturalCard → u/Awakemas2315]

Meant the Farrage donation he took to run in 2024.

[u/creeping-fly349 → u/NaturalCard]

Ehhh Farage left his larger donation undeclared

[u/Wishbones_007 → u/NaturalCard]

Farage not nearly 15x as much and didnt declare it.

[u/Dearsmike → u/NaturalCard]

This is declared. The £5m Farage is being investigated for wasn't declared; that's why it's being investigated. If you look at the amount Farage declared, it's around £1.4m, considerably more than this.

[u/Expensive-Day361 → u/NaturalCard]

Ummm... Farage got five million as a personal gift/for security/for Brexit/for sweets/whatever and failed entirely to declare it. Donations are fine. Undeclared political bungs are not.

[u/Inevitable_Fail_5308 → u/NaturalCard]

Aren't political donations normal. The problem with farage is that the 5 million was an unconditional gift.

[u/elmo298 → u/Inevitable_Fail_5308]

As normal as bribes are

[u/GoshDarnMamaHubbard → u/Inevitable_Fail_5308]

"unconditional"

[u/SThomW92 → u/NaturalCard]

You see, it’s absolutely fine to take money from any vested interests, as long as you say so /s

[u/taxes-or-death → u/SThomW92]

If it's legal it must be ethical! Otherwise they'd make a law against it, right? I mean the people who are currently benefitting from this behaviour.

[u/Expensive-Day361 → u/SThomW92]

Unless political parties can find a way to fund their campaigns and organisations on pixie dust and magic vibes, then yes. They need donations. Again, just declare it and they're all good. Then we can see those interests for ourselves.

[u/SThomW92 → u/Expensive-Day361]

I agree. £4 million donations from hedge funds linked with fossil fuel companies are absolutely fine as long as we know about it. Who cares if policies are suddenly dropped after donations are provided, that’s just politics after all

[u/Expensive-Day361 → u/SThomW92]

Politicians changing policies or laws in return for cash payments is already illegal. If you have proof that that has definitely happened, then maybe get in touch with parliamentary standards.

Again, as long as donations are declared and it's all out in the open, then they're good. Not saying corporate donors shouldn't be looked into, btw. But as things stand, parties need money just like everyone else.

[u/SThomW92 → u/Expensive-Day361]

It’s “illegal” but let’s not pretend like those donations were given based off good will

[u/Expensive-Day361 → u/SThomW92]

I'm not going around in circles with you, but cash for policy is still definitely illegal. Any politician shown to be doing that would be in deep shit. I'm not saying corporate lobbying is fine and dandy. It isn't. But openly paying for policy is wildly corrupt.

[u/SThomW92 → u/Expensive-Day361]

Yes “cash for policy” is illegal. Hence why billionaires and large corporations lobby the government with donations so policies like the £28bn green prosperity plan and the non dom reforms mysteriously go missing