Nope,
and Nope.
It's really important to get the fact straight if they are to be the basis of one's viewpoint.
Firstly, you only know about this because he entered everything into the record of interests. All of it was within the rules. There is categorically no evidence or implication of wrongdoing or "corruption". No "investigative journalism" was performed, or even possible, because nothing at all that you have seen (secondhand, with spin attached) was outside of the public record. Digging has of course been going on, but nothing at all has been uncovered, otherwise we'd definitely all know about it (and I'd be first in line to condemn Starmer).
Corruption would be where, for instance:
An MP deliberately avoided entering gifts into the register.
Failed to respond about where gifts had been accepted when questioned. (And further doubled down by insisting that they no longer had access to that info because they'd lost their phone, changed their phone, etc and didn't retain messages,,,)
Accepted a gift on a direct promise of acting on the donor's financial interests, or worse, acting *illegally* in the direct financial interest of the donor,
etc...
None of what has happened with Starmer (and this connects with the second question nicely) has had any impropriety attached.
MPs accept gifts. Whether you like that or not is a different discussion altogether.
So we can categorically refute your claim of any corruption.
Secondly, the timescale in question was over the period of the last 4 years. WHEN LABOUR WERE IN OPPOSITION.
Two things can be deduced from this.
It reinforces the point that no corruption would even be possible. Labour were not in power and Starmer had no control over policy or funding decisions. I think we can safely doubly put the claim of corruption to bed.
Also your second claim about "doubling salary" or whatever you said, is rendered entirely untrue. It was over 4 years. Before entering government.
I suspect that the basis of your viewpoint is not founded upon the facts and evidence outlined above, but rather something else (and possibly pre-existing bias?).
Incredibly naive to suppose that the fact Starmer, or any other current cabinet minister was in opposition precludes any wrongdoing.
For how long would you say it was apparent that the Tories were probably going to lose?
I would argue certainly since Truss, and arguably well before.
Perfectly sensible for anyone seeking the ear of a future government to start grooming them early on.
As others have said very difficult to prove any corruption, unless those involved are very stupid. And to be clear I am not suggesting the passing of brown envelopes in return for some specific legislation for example.
But do you seriously believe that when people from a gambling organisation, for instance, "entertain" politicians, they do not take the opportunity to put across their point of view, or at the very least to ensure that they have banked a favourable impression of their business?
Why else would they be doing it?
Whether it was within the rules is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Here is a man who has repeatedly promised us a new beginning and an end to sleazy behaviour.
Anyone with a IQ in double figures ought to have been able to see how his acceptance of thousands of pounds in freebies since becoming PM would look in the light of these promises, within the rules or not.
So he is either too thick to have worked it out, or too arrogant to care.
Neither qualities I would like to see in someone in his position.
I have to conclude that you are either touchingly naive, or perhaps you have your own bias at work?
