Despite the protestations of Keir Starmer and others, the most important issue regarding donations to politicians or parties is not whether such gifts are declared, it is the influence that the gifts have on them (Peer gave Keir Starmer more clothes worth £16,000, declared as money for private office, 27 September). This may not immediately be obvious – it may be months or years before it pays off.
Declaring potential conflicts of interest does not eradicate them as conflicts of interest. For example, studies done on the efficacy of psychiatric medications and many influential medical papers list the benefits the authors received; it is not unusual to see whole pages devoted to their financial connections to pharmaceutical firms. That must cast some doubt on the validity of the studies.
It is naive to assume significant monetary donations or gifts have no effect on the recipients. If that were true, companies and wealthy individuals would not bother, and the lobbying industry – worth billions – would not exist.
Touting the transparency of donations or gifts is not enough. The influence bought by wealthy donors cannot be erased merely by a declaration in the register of members’ interests.
Hannah Walker
Wymondham, Leicestershire
• I’m nearly 74 and not exactly poor, but I don’t think my entire bill for clothing myself for the last 50 years, including celebratory occasions, has come anywhere near Keir Starmer’s £16,000 spend. Why do I suddenly feel so shabby?
Rory E MacFlynn
Dublin, Ireland
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
