I believe that if the gift is relevant to their job, ie the culture minister being invited to a cultural event, then accepting it is OK. But if it's just a nice little present, then let them wait until after they have left office.

There shouldn't be an outright ban but all such gifts should be declared monthly and classed as personal income, taxed annually subject to normal HMRC tax thresholds. Failure to declare any gifts should result in a fine disproportionate to the actual value of the gift. 

An annual public record should include gifts received, their value, confirmation of tax paid on gifts, and publish any fines received by each individual politician. All this may help temper the appetite for freebies.

Any ban would be impossible to enforce; politicians already flout rules left, right and centre and get clean away with it.

Surely it is time to follow other countries' lead in regards to the transparency of political parties' funding. We should mark a new era in British politics (which the Labour Party promised) – starting with our political parties' funding. Perhaps a state-allocated spending limit could be introduced?

 

Let's move away from the obscene amounts spent on promotions and gifts, which always give rise to a whiff of corruption. It's a great opportunity for the new government to put their money where their mouth is, particularly when it comes to clothing! What's the problem with shopping in the reasonably priced shops we all go to, or finding bargains online?

 

Rather than giving the money to political parties and leaders, these rich donors could fund all sorts of community projects, otherwise called philanthropy. If they need recognition, let their names appear on buildings, playing fields, schools etc. It'd be a far better use of their millions – the country would benefit enormously. The royal family could also be persuaded to part with their vast income in the same way, and open up some of their homes that we all pay for anyway.

 

It rather reminds me of this quote: "We waste so many precious moments concerning ourselves with frivolous details. An outfit will not change the world, it probably won't even change your day."

Any individual in the political, corporate, judiciary et al world accepting gifts is immediately – to greater or lesser degree – compromised.
- Rob Charman

Don't politicians understand that accepting gifts puts them at a psychological disadvantage by predisposing them favourably to the donor when their focus should be the public interest? Or worse, risks the public losing complete confidence in politics?

 

The outcome of this latest scandal is that restrictions must be placed on funding and donations to parties by individuals. If this means the state funding political parties then so be it, but wealth must be relegated to its proper place outside politics, not eating away at it from the inside while the public interest is seconded.

 

And now Keir Starmer says he will not accept any more clothes donations. To me as a Labour member, this is just to miss the point completely.

Certainly politicians should be banned from accepting donations: they're well-paid and they get expenses for reasonable outlays of their own money (not including duck houses or porn films!).

But at the moment there's no limit on what interested individuals or organisations can give to political parties – and that's wrong. No one party (historically the Tories) should be able to garner millions more than the others for propagandising. Voters should be able to judge them by their manifestos, not be misled by the amount of hard cash they have to throw around. It's only fair. 

And if politicians don't believe their own policies would be enough to win over voters then surely they should either be in a different party or should go back to banking or stockbroking or making shoes or whatever.
-Val Gaize

I think they should be banned from accepting any gifts worth more than a modest value, say £50 or £100. 
-David Thornton

I see little issue with politicians accepting gifts – provided that they're small and are declared with full disclosure of the donor. Of course, 'small' needs defining here, I'd suggest a limit of 1% of the recipient's salary per donor per annum. Gifts in this context should include free or reduced-rate services such as holidays, transport etc.

 

I don't think it is black and white. Gifts contain things such as refreshments. If a politician and their partner are invited to an event – such as to speak at a dinner, for example – then the cost of the dinner or the ticket must be declared if it is above a minimum level. This applies at all levels of politics. 

Additionally, politicians can receive gifts such as tickets to events or produce which can often be donated to local charities or organisations as prizes in raffles or as recognition awards prizes.

 

What I would certainly back is the tightening of the donations and their reporting. Individual MPs should not be able to accept gifts of more than £50 or £100 without having to declare them or any gifts at all from corporations or businesses that are not based solely in their constituency. 

I would also say that there needs to be more tightening of the donation structure:

• An organisation, or an individual linked to it, should not be able to donate to any ministers at the government department overseeing their sector or any MP who sits on a committee relevant to their sector.
• Any funding from trust funds or similar faceless bodies should not be allowed, as this breaks the Nolan principles of transparency.
• Individuals cannot use commercial/charity funds to make donations in their name.

Companies with shareholders would have to hold a ballot of shareholders before a donation can be made (as unions do). Maybe shareholders could have the choice of opting in or out of a political fund and only that fund could be used for political donations.

The political system in the UK is rapidly becoming Americanised, with campaigns becoming big money beasts and the party that has more funding often having a bigger impact. 

 

Although parties raise funds through their constituencies, the larger funding pots do come from outside. Labour's has traditionally come from trade unions, but these have been under attack since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and the Tories are critical of any Labour politician supporting industrial action, particularly a strike. This has been a systematic policy designed to weaken unions, democracy and Labour Party funding – and it has been very successful, especially with the buy-in of the media. The Tories have also constantly increased the amount of money that can be spent on an election because their donors tend to be richer and give more.

Having said all that, evening the playing field could involve an independent body setting a maximum budget for election spending, with the budget funded by the public purse and no other spending being allowed. Indeed, there could be serious consequences if a party broke this law – such as by issuing specific fines, which would go into the reserve pot for funding future elections.
 
These are practical actions that could be taken to ensure that the system is fair and, even more importantly in some ways, seen to be transparent. Unfortunately, the people who make the decisions on this are the politicians themselves. A few years ago I would have thought that the Labour Party would have considered these as viable options but now it seems to be more influenced by corporate donors than unions, members or the general public.

I saw a front-page photograph of Angela Rayner sat next to King Charles. The headline piece was all about her accepting money for clothes! We seem to be seeking some perfectly democratic process by which politicians are influenced because we do need them to be responsive to alternative ideas. Those who cannot be influenced are surely autocrats, aren't they?

 

Suppose Rayner were to be financed for her wardrobe by the public purse and dressed so well she could patronise clothing suppliers with her endorsements and be praised by the media for her magnificent dress sense and her support for British business. Of course that might cost a few thousand but then she could sit next to Charles and the headline might be about how many millions it costs us to dress him and his whole extended family and about how many inducements he is offered for his patronage.

 

Let's promote a better way of ensuring that our public representatives are properly paid for their expenses with the opportunity to wear the best outfits our country can afford and continue to shine a spotlight wherever undue influence occurs. Keep a sense of proportion and apply the same criteria to everyone in public office. Right now the balance seems absent.