Blairs' discount designer clothes deal caused No 10 concern, files show
From fashion designer Nicole Farhi alone, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth nearly £21,000 for herself and the prime minister, paying just over £8,000.She also had substantial discounts from Burberry, James Lakeland, Ungaro, Joseph, and Maria Grachvogel, amongst others.These "wholesale" discounts had been negotiated by Carole Caplin, Mrs Blair's trainer and personal shopper.Sir Tony, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, also benefited from a 25% discount from Paul Smith, famous for his suits.The freshly released documents reveal how the optics of the discounts and spending was a concern for Downing Street officials at the time."In terms of public perception," wrote No 10 private secretary Clare Sumner, "the amounts involved are quite large".Along with the cabinet secretary, she recommended that the Blairs should pay back part of the discount, though Cherie was entitled to divide her purchases into two, on the basis that half the clothes were required for her role as a "career woman".They would say the Blairs had "commercial terms" from the designers, which were usually a discount of about 10 or 15%.She suggested other options, including saying that Mrs Blair had the same treatment as other high profile individuals with a personal shopper, and that she needed the clothes for public engagements of her own.She said Mrs Blair sometimes gave her outfits to charities or exhibitions after use: "So it is difficult to see how anyone could seriously allege she is acquiring a clear personal benefit out of your position as PM."
According to the memo, the discounts had been in place for several years, and dated back to before Sir Tony was prime minister.Sir Tony himself scrawled "Speak to me" on the memo, dated 19 February 2003. Later that day, Mrs Blair spoke to Ms Sumner.Her note to the cabinet secretary, dated 4 March 2003, says Mrs Blair agreed to speak to Paddy Campbell, Paul Smith and Nicole Farhi to "ask them to set out in writing their terms of trade, confirm that these terms are available to others (with personal shoppers or as individuals) and to provide an estimate of the numbers of people who bought their clothes in a similar way".She would also confirm that "confidentiality agreements" were in place with these designers.The intent was to "satisfy" Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, that "no preferential treatment had been given".There is no mention of gifts of clothes discounts in the ministerial gift list in the file – which was published on 14 March 2003.On behalf of the Blairs, the Tony Blair Institute said: " We have nothing to add to what has already been disclosed which shows that advice was sought and followed."
As prime minister, Sir Tony received some extremely generous presents from famous people and world leaders.U2 lead singer Bono had given him a guitar – as had Bryan Adams.Silvio Berlusconi, the then Italian prime minister, offered multiple designer watches, including timepieces from Piaget, Corum, Jaeger-Coultre, and Cartier.The prime minister asked Ms Sumner to make the list "more boring" – so the published version did not include the type of watch, which can retail at many thousands of pounds each.She wrote: "I have taken out details of individuals, removed the valuations for all items except those which have been purchased and minimised the descriptions of items."The concern over discounted clothes has similarities with criticism faced by Sir Keir Starmer and his wife. Last year he accepted more than £18,000 for spectacles and work clothing from the Labour peer Lord Alli, who also paid for some clothes for Sir Keir's wife Victoria worth just over £6,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
a minute ago
- Times
Starmer rejects call to follow Macron in recognising Palestinian state
Sir Keir Starmer has rejected a call by more than 130 Labour MPs to follow Emmanuel Macron and formally recognise a Palestinian state amid concerns that the issue would overshadow President Trump's visit to the UK. The French president announced on Thursday that he would formally recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, increasing pressure on Starmer. Cabinet ministers have privately been urging the prime minister to do the same and on Friday more than a third of his backbenchers signed a letter calling on him to follow suit. The issue threatens to dominate Trump's four-day visit to the UK, which formally begins on Saturday. Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, said that Macron's decision was 'reckless' and 'only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace'. 'It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7,' he added. Speaking on Friday before flying to Scotland for a five-day visit, Trump said that Macron's announcement 'doesn't matter'. 'He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight,' he said, adding: 'Here's the good news: What he says doesn't matter. It's not going to change anything.' Starmer's reluctance is likely to deepen divisions within the cabinet, with one member of the government immediately branding the response 'deeply inadequate'. A senior government source said that there were concerns that recognising a Palestinian state while Trump was visiting could derail discussions over a US-UK trade deal. Starmer is meeting Trump at his Turnberry golf course on Monday. In a statement released after talks with Macron, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, and Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, Starmer made clear that he would not bring forward an announcement. Starmer said that while he was 'unequivocal' about recognising a Palestinian state, he would only do so at a time of 'maximum utility to improve the lives of those who are suffering'. It means that the UK will not recognise a Palestinian state until there is a ceasefire with the return of the October 7 hostages, and humanitarian aid is restored to Gaza. Starmer said: 'Alongside our closest allies, I am working on a pathway to peace in the region, focused on the practical solutions that will make a real difference to the lives of those that are suffering in this war. 'That pathway will set out the concrete steps needed to turn the ceasefire, so desperately needed, into a lasting peace. 'Recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps. I am unequivocal about that. But it must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis. This is the way to ensure it is a tool of maximum utility to improve the lives of those who are suffering — which, of course, will always be our ultimate goal.' He said that the scenes in Gaza were 'appalling' and 'unrelenting'. 'The continued captivity of hostages, the starvation and denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, the increasing violence from extremist settler groups, and Israel's disproportionate military escalation in Gaza are all indefensible,' he said. A total of 136 Labour MPs — equivalent to a third of Starmer's parliamentary party — have signed a cross-party letter calling for Britain to stand up to its 'historic responsibility' and recognise a Palestinian state. The letter was signed by 221 MPs in total. It said: 'Whilst we appreciate the UK does not have it in its power to bring about a free and independent Palestine, UK recognition would have a significant impact due to our historic connections and our membership on the UN Security Council, so we urge you to take this step. 'British recognition of Palestine would be particularly powerful given its role as the author of the Balfour Declaration and the former Mandatory Power in Palestine. Since 1980 we have backed a two-state solution. Such a recognition would give that position substance as well as living up to a historic responsibility we have to the people under that mandate.' • Why Israel can't brush off France's recognition of a Palestine state The letter was organised by Sarah Champion, a Labour MP and chair of the international development select committee. It was signed by 19 select committee chairs in total including the Labour MPs Emily Thornberry, Tan Dhesi, Debbie Abrahams and Florence Eshalomi. Jess Morden, the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, was also a signatory. Israel condemned Macron's decision. Binyamin Netanyahu said the announcement 'rewards terror' and warned that a Palestinian state would be a 'launch pad to annihilate Israel'. The Knesset, Israel's parliament, voted to annex the West Bank — a move which would make a Palestinian state impossible. Itamar Ben-Gvir, national security minister and the most outspoken far-right minister in Netanyahu's cabinet, said: 'Complete halt of 'humanitarian' aid. Total occupation of the Strip. Total destruction of Hamas. Encouragement of migration. Settlement. 'This is not the alternative path — this is the royal road to securing the release of the hostages and achieving victory in the war.' • Israel and US pull out of Gaza ceasefire talks with 'selfish' Hamas Sir Jeremy Greenstock, a former British ambassador to the UN, was one of 50 diplomats who signed a letter calling for Starmer to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state. He said it would go beyond 'rhetoric' and encourage countries in the Middle East to follow suit.
Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
Donald Trump can show Keir Starmer how to stop the boats
When Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump in Scotland on Monday, they will have an obvious topic of discussion: how to control illegal border crossings. Both came to power on a wave of public anger over asylum seekers. Both vowed to take back control but the results couldn't be more different. Britain's small-boat arrivals have hit record highs, with migrant hotels full and protests spreading. In the US, illegal crossings from Mexico have collapsed and are 97 per cent below their Biden-era peak. As Trump likes to say: 'Promises made, promises kept'. It helps explain why, in spite of tariff chaos and the Epstein drama, Trump's approval rating remains one of the highest among the leaders of major countries. Starmer's, by contrast, has fallen with Liz Truss-style speed to a level from which no prime minister has ever recovered. He will find much to disagree with in Trump's approach to border control. But he'll also find lessons: in what works, what doesn't and what voters expect. It's hard to understand Trump's re-election without grasping the depth of feeling about illegal immigration under Joe Biden. 'The border is closed; the border is secure,' declared Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden's homeland security chief, in 2021. An unprecedented 2.2 million illegal arrivals the next year proved him wrong. 'There is no word to describe this except 'invasion',' said the governor of Montana, a state 800 miles from the southern border but already feeling the ramifications. Authorities were overwhelmed. Those apprehended, children included, were often kept in appalling conditions. Then came the deaths: 53 found suffocated in a people-smuggling truck in Texas. Then the crime: theft, assaults, fentanyl and meth-smuggling — each example used by Trump's supporters as a parable of national collapse. By the start of last year, 78 per cent of Americans agreed that the border situation was in crisis or, at least, a major problem. Cue Trump. He declared a national emergency on day one, deploying thousands of troops to the Mexican border. Then came the shock and awe. Some 10,000 refugees who had been approved for settlement in the US had the offer rescinded, their entry denied and their flight tickets rendered worthless. Police were told to detain everyone, rather than release people who would then start their asylum case. It caused outrage — but, to Trump, helpful outrage. It sent out a message: best not try your luck. The results were almost instant and spectacular. Monthly figures for border 'encounters' collapsed to the lowest level since the 1960s. Had Trump left it there, all might have been well. But ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, started to go after those who had been in the US for years, using what critics regard as stormtrooper-style tactics. Masked officers raided workplaces; flash grenades were used against Californian protesters. Under Biden ICE had, in effect, been told to stand down. Trump sent ICE to war. The recent clashes in Los Angeles offer a taste of this new normal. I was in Washington recently and saw a side to ICE that's rarely glimpsed from this side of the Atlantic: its speed, its success and its sense of a moral mission. 'The American people deserve a federal government that chooses to put them first,' I was told. 'We go after the worst of the worst: gang members, murderers and rapists.' But it's also going after law-abiding Venezuelans who have suddenly been recategorised as illegal. With almost 1,000 arrests every day, it's proving a bit much even for Trump's supporters. The prime minister will be appalled at this. But what should really haunt him is a phrase that was doing the rounds in Washington under Biden: 'If liberals won't control borders, fascists will.' It's hyperbolic: Trump, for all his flaws, is no fascist. But the warning very much applies here. If centrists can't restore order, populists will be put in power to do it instead. Starmer's current methods are failing as badly as Biden's. His 'smash the gangs' strategy is going nowhere; his deals with the French have no effect. Small-boat arrivals have risen by 50 per cent so far this year; far-right protesters will be outside a migrant hotel in Epping this weekend. Nigel Farage, safely ahead in the polls, is doing his own ICE-man-cometh routine, saying that he'd send even British prisoners to El Salvador. The small-boats debacle is a daily outrage, an ever-renewing symbol of government failure. To see young men couriered over and checked into hotels and served hot meals will obviously anger those struggling to put food on the table. The situation could be designed to cause outrage, erode confidence in the government and drive voters towards the angry right. But even now, Starmer has plenty of time to act. What if he were to cut a deal to send every small-boat arrival not to an Essex hotel but straight to Rwanda or Kosovo, where they would have to stay even if their claim was upheld? If all 1,000 arrivals were deported on a Monday, then all 700 on a Tuesday, how many might still arrive on the Friday? We'd likely see a US-style collapse in numbers. It need not be a rerun of Tory policy as Starmer could also bring in a one-out, two-in policy. For every small-boat deportee he could fly in two vetted asylum seekers from the (many) UK-funded refugee camps, with a bias towards women and children. It would be a question of how, not whether, Britain discharges its moral duty to the world's dispossessed: using our rules, not those of the gangs. He could use his legal background to write a new framework, replacing the 1951 Refugee Convention which has descended into a people traffickers' charter. Yes, deportation is cruel. But far less so than today's system of criminal gangs, deaths in transit and, perhaps worse, the collapse of public support for the asylum system. Trump embodies a simple point: when borders get out of control, voters will press the Godzilla button and call in the big beasts. Labour has always seen immigration as a question of values: compassion, duty, international solidarity. It still can be, but only if control is restored. Without it, the issue becomes a test not of moral character but of basic competence. On that score, Labour is failing spectacularly. For years, the left has warned that populists thrive when institutions fail. The asylum system, in its current state, is just such a failure: chaotic, cruel and politically toxic. Fix it, and Starmer could offer Britain an alternative to Farageism. Fail, and the electorate may soon conclude that only Reform UK is serious about solving the problem. Starmer can still avoid this fate. He just needs to stop acting as the clerk of a broken system and, instead, become the author of a new one.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour urged to overhaul crucial pension-age benefit claimed by millions
The government has been told it needs to make major changes to a pension-age benefit claimed by millions if it is to effectively tackle pensioner poverty in the UK. Claimed by 1.3 million individuals, Pension Credit is designed to bring low-income pensioners' funds up to a liveable level. Under current entitlement, claimants will see their incomes topped up to at least £227.10 a week. But more must be done to improve take-up of the benefit, the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee has warned, as well as changes to make it fairer. Despite being worth up to £4,000 a year, the take-up of pension credit has hovered between 61 and 66 per cent for a decade, with an estimated 700,000 households being eligible but not claiming, the committee found in its report on pensioner poverty. A taper to pension credit should also be considered to 'mitigate the cliff-edge effect' for those who currently miss out, it added. Under current rules, some pensioners just above income thresholds could end up worse off than those with slightly lower incomes. This is because Pension Credit can 'passport' recipients to other benefits such as housing benefit, council tax support, the warm home discount, a free TV licence, and help with dental treatment. In winter last year, it was also linked to the winter fuel payment, resulting in around around 60,000 extra awards of the benefit. But there is 'still a long way to go,' the committee report says. It also urged the Government to commit to a UK-wide, cross-government strategy for an ageing society to better target support and tackle pensioner poverty. The number of pensioners in relative low income began rising again in the 2010s, the cross-party group notes, reversing a decline from the 2000s. This was exacerbated by the recent cost of living crisis, with 1.9 million pensioners (16 per cent) now living in relative poverty. Committee chairwoman Debbie Abrahams said: 'To boost incomes, the Government needs to come up with a strategy to increase pension credit take-up. It's a scandal that so many have missed out for so many years, often through an aversion to claiming benefits altogether, or lack of support. 'The fairness of the pensions credit eligibility criteria where if you are a penny above the threshold, you miss out on thousands of pounds, also needs to be looked at. 'Ultimately, the Government should decide what it thinks is enough for a dignified retirement, and then work to ensure that all pensioners are on at least that level. A government spokesperson said: 'Supporting pensioners is a top priority, and thanks to our commitment to the Triple Lock, millions will see their yearly State Pension rise by £1,900 this parliament. We have also run the biggest-ever campaign to boost Pension Credit take-up, with nearly 60,000 extra pensioner households being awarded the benefit, worth on average around £4,300 a year. 'But we know there is a real risk that tomorrow's pensioners will be poorer than today's, which is why we are reviving the Pension Commission, to tackle the barriers that stop too many people from saving.'
