Sir Keir Starmer campaigned in the general election about being a politician who would do things differently and lead a government of service.
His was a message of change not just about how he would run the country, but also about how he would lead the government change. It was billed not just as a change of power from one party to another but as a change of culture too.
If the polls are anything to go by, that message has been blunted and his reputation tarnished in the early days of his government over the row around Sir Keir’s freebies. In the last parliament, Sir Keir claimed more freebies – £107,145 – than any other politician.
The handouts ranged from clothing (£16,200) to football freebies (more than £35,000), concert tickets, rugby matches and the races (£17,000).
He has also just declared £20,000 in accommodation during the election, borrowing a rich donor’s multi-million penthouse so his son could study for his GCSEs away from the media scrums around the Starmer’s family home in Kentish Town in London.
New polling put out by YouGov on Wednesday found that three out of four people thought donations of concert tickets and money for clothes to politicians should be banned.
More on Keir Starmer
Related Topics:
Meanwhile, in the early days of the government, the PM’s personal popularity ratings have fallen sharply.
A fresh survey by Opinium reveals that the prime minister’s approval rating has dropped 45 points to -26 since he became the country’s leader. It now makes him – by a point – less popular than his predecessor Rishi Sunak.
Advertisement
There are undoubtedly a number of factors playing into Sir Keir’s drop in popularity – not least his decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.
But talk to colleagues around him, and the row over freebies has caused some consternation. At best, it has pulled the government off message and on to the back foot – at worst, it has become a personal problem for a prime minister who promised to do things differently, and now is having the charge levelled against him that he’s like those who went before, taking freebies from rich friends.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:47
PM defends £20k donation from Lord Alli
Sir Keir might find that uncomfortable, or vehemently disagree with it, but can he understand that while he is following all the rules, the perception, the optics of claiming all these freebies while asking people to take the pain of difficult choices is an issue for him and his government?
In our interview, it was evident that if the prime minister saw the tensions between his promises about how he would conduct politics and claiming sizeable freebies, he did not want to acknowledge that in an interview that was far tenser than I had anticipated and in which, at times, he seemed palpably angry.
The prime minister made the point that the claims were in the rules and that “behind some of those numbers, there is a human story”.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
He explained how he has to now sit in corporate hospitality when he watches his beloved Arsenal with his son because of security reasons and does not want to cost the taxpayer more money by sitting in his usual seat in the stands.
And when it comes to the £20,000 accommodation he claimed in the election, the prime minister has a very clear answer: he did it to protect his son, who was studying for his GCSEs at the time and needed a peaceful place to study where he did not have to run the gauntlet of journalists hanging outside the house.
Many of you will think these are reasonable explanations, some of you will not.
Image: Sir Keir is a regular at Arsenal home and away matches. Pic: Reuters
But what is incontrovertible is the volume of freebies Sir Keir has claimed.
When I asked him about clothing, he said he would no longer accept donations. When I asked him about concert tickets – Taylor Swift, Adele, Coldplay – he indicated he might still go, saying it was a matter of judgement.
In short, the prime minister point-blank refused to engage in questions around the optics of his claims and how they might undermine his political messaging and personal reputation with the public.
Does it matter? One of the charges brought against Sir Keir during the election by political opponents was he was a politician who said one thing and did another.
The Conservatives campaigned hard on the notion that he would say no tax rises for working people and then put up taxes – we will see what he does in the budget.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
And there were those on his own side who lost trust in him after he campaigned on a left-wing agenda to become leader only to move away from that once he had won.
Whether he likes it or not, thinks it’s fair or not, will admit it or not, the row over freebies has raised questions about how much of that “change” was rhetoric and how much is real?
For years, launching a crypto project in the United States has been a maze of uncertainty. Legal ambiguity and a hostile regulatory environment have driven founders offshore, turning places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands into global hubs for blockchain innovation.
With Trump’s election, things finally started to change, with a US administration openly declaring its intention to be crypto-friendly. Yet, despite the rhetoric, nothing concrete has changed so far.
Launching a crypto project in the US is just as difficult as ever. US regulatory agencies continue to offer nothing but vague threats and “regulation by enforcement” lawsuits. America wants to be a leader in crypto, but, even under the Trump administration, it isn’t taking action to create the conditions that would make that happen.
Killing crypto in America
Every crypto project faces the same fundamental problem: Achieving decentralization is critical to avoid regulatory scrutiny, but until a project launches its token, a degree of centralization is unavoidable.
The SEC’s outdated Howey test ensures that nearly every legitimate crypto project gets classified as a security. The logic is self-defeating. Projects can’t decentralize without launching a token, but launching a token in the US instantly puts them in the SEC’s crosshairs.
This isn’t just a theoretical issue; it has real consequences. Liquidity providers, essential for all new token launches, won’t engage with US-based projects because they assume their tokens will be classified as securities. Centralized exchanges refuse to list tokens issued from US entities for the same reason. Even decentralized exchanges face pressure from their legal teams to avoid actively seeding liquidity for American projects. The result? US founders are boxed out of the global crypto economy before they even get started.
Offshore jurisdictions are winning
This regulatory failure has spawned an entire cottage industry of offshore legal firms specializing in setting up token-issuing entities. With its FINMA no-action letter system, Switzerland has become a hotbed for crypto projects because it offers one of the few structured ways to get legal clarity on a token’s classification. The Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands have also established themselves as crypto safe havens, providing flexible corporate structures that allow projects to operate with far less regulatory risk.
The absurdity is that the actual work — the development, the hiring, the innovation — still happens in the US. The token issuance gets pushed offshore via “Associations” and “Foundations,” which serve non-profits operating independently of US-based development shops. American founders are forced to funnel money into unnecessary legal fees, overseas operators, and shell foundations to avoid the inevitable crackdown from US regulators. This isn’t just bad for crypto; it’s bad for America. Until it can be solved, the US will continue to hemorrhage talent, investment, and influence to less myopic jurisdictions.
Make America crypto-friendly
The US has spent years fumbling crypto policy, and now, even with an administration that claims to be pro-crypto, it’s still failing to deliver real change. The solution isn’t to promise capital gains tax exemptions on crypto, as some have suggested. That does little to ameliorate the punishing regulatory landscape US-based projects are forced to navigate. If the US truly wants to lead in crypto, it also must take the lead in providing regulatory clarity.
That means finally recognizing that the same regulations that have governed traditional financial markets can’t always be applied to crypto. The Howey test doesn’t work. Instead, the government must provide a new and functional legal framework for the crypto industry.
It’s time for US legislators and regulators to acknowledge that crypto tokens can’t achieve decentralization instantaneously and almost always require the efforts of a team of core contributors to bootstrap initial growth and development. The federal government must devise a version of the Howey test that does not automatically classify every new crypto token as a security but instead allows tokens a grace period to decentralize. In conjunction with this, the US must establish new protections to ensure insiders aren’t unduly benefiting from crypto projects while they scale.
In addition to swiftly ending the “regulation by enforcement” approach employed under Gary Gensler’s SEC, a tactic seemingly designed to gradually smother crypto activity in the US, the government must provide clear guidelines. It needs to be feasible for market makers to evaluate whether US tokens are commodities or securities with a degree of stability and predictability. This is the only way to end the blanket bans market makers have placed on US tokens and bring crypto development back to America.
America’s window of opportunity is closing
Crypto founders aren’t waiting for Washington to figure it out. Every day, without clear regulations, more crypto projects are incorporated offshore. The US doesn’t even need to “embrace” crypto. It just needs to stop actively driving it away.
If this administration truly wants to make the US the leader in crypto, it needs to move beyond campaign slogans and start fixing the fundamental problems that forced this industry offshore in the first place. And it needs to act fast.
Opinion by: Shane Molidor, Founder, Forgd.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s digital identity project World, formerly Worldcoin, is facing challenges in Indonesia amid local regulators temporarily suspending its registration certificates.
The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Digital (Komdigi) has halted the Electronic System Operator Certificate Registration (TDPSE) for World and World ID over suspicious activity and alleged registration violations, the authority announced on May 4.
After the suspension, Komdigi plans to summon World’s local subsidiaries, PT Terang Bulan Abadi and PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara, to provide clarification on the alleged violations, it said.
According to a preliminary investigation, World’s PT Terang Bulan Abadi was allegedly operating without TDPSE, while PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara — the one World was using for providing its services — is allegedly involved in legal misrepresentation.
Indonesian law requires registration by all digital service providers
In the statement, Komdigi emphasized that all digital service providers in Indonesia must receive electronic registration in accordance with local laws.
Additionally, using another entity’s registration is considered a major breach of Indonesian digital operations law, the authority noted.
“Worldcoin services are recorded using TDPSE in the name of another legal entity, namely PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara,” Alexander Sabar, the Komdigi’s director general for digital supervision, said in the announcement, adding:
“Noncompliance with registration obligations and the use of the identity of another legal entity to carry out digital services is a serious violation.”
Community action required
According to Sabar, World’s temporary suspension in Indonesia is a measure taken to prevent potential risks to the community.
He mentioned that the digital ministry is committed to overseeing the digital ecosystem fairly and strictly to ensure the security of the national digital space.
Alexander Sabar is the head of Indonesia’s newly established Digital Space Monitoring Directorate General. Source: Komdigi
A proper supervision would require active participation from the community, Sabar added, stating:
“We invite the public to help maintain a safe and trusted digital space for all citizens. Komdigi also appeals to the public to remain vigilant against unauthorized digital services, and to immediately report suspected violations through the official public complaint channel.”
In the meantime, the community has apparently been divided over action by Komdigi.
“Good job Indonesia — at least somebody is standing up to that scam,” one commentator wrote on Reddit.
Others fired back, hinting at potential benefits stemming from World’s offering in Indonesia for the general public.
“If giving up your iris biometrics means you can feed your loved ones for a few weeks, that might be a trade worth making. In the end, it all depends on what matters most to you,” another Redditor said.
World’s latest news from Indonesia follows World’s debut in the United States in May 2025, with the platform rolling out its digital identity tech in six cities initially.
US President Donald Trump gave clashing answers to whether he has profited from the crypto memecoin he launched in January, just days before he re-entered the White House.
In a wide-ranging interview with Kristen Welker on NBC News’ Meet the Press released on May 4, Trump said he was “not profiting from anything” when asked to respond to critics who said he’s profiting from the presidency through the memecoin.
“So you’re not profiting off of the cryptocurrency at all?” Welker asked Trump.
“I haven’t even looked,” Trump admitted.
“But I’ll tell you what. Look, if I own stock in something and I do a good job, and the stock market goes up, I guess I’m profiting.”
Trump launched his memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP), on Jan. 17, which hit a peak of $73.43 two days later, just a day before he was inaugurated as president on Jan. 20, according to CoinGecko.
The token has been in a steady decline since launch, but it surged late last month after its website offered top holders a chance to dine with Trump on May 22. It’s currently trading at $11.35, down nearly 85% from its peak.
Trump was apparently unaware of his token’s recent surge, repeatedly asking how much it was now worth.
Two companies, CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of Trump’s sprawling Trump Organization, and Fight Fight Fight LLC, which is co-owned by CIC Digital, together own 80% of the token’s total 1 billion supply.
Most of those tokens are locked up and will be released over the next three years. The first unlock on April 18 saw 40 million tokens, worth $454 million, go to CIC Digital.
Trump-controlled entities own 80% of the TRUMP token supply, which will be released periodically until 2028. Source: Trump Meme
Trump’s memecoin project has made at least $350 million so far, according to a March analysis from the Financial Times, which found those behind the token made $314 million from selling them and $36 million from fees.
Trump has been criticized over his many crypto dealings, which his opponents say are a conflict of interest as he looks to unburden the sector from regulators.
Even those in his own party, Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis and Lisa Murkowski, have criticized Trump’s dinner offer to his top tokenholders.
Trump said during the interview that he would contribute his presidential salary “back to the government,” prompting Welker to ask if he would also contribute any potential crypto earnings.
“I never thought of that,” Trump answered. “I mean, should I contribute all of my real estate that I’ve owned for many years if it goes up a little bit because I’m president and doing a good job? I don’t think so.”
Trump reiterates crypto commitment
In a part of the interview, Trump made a meandering statement that reiterated his campaign promise to support crypto.
“I want crypto. I think crypto’s important because if we don’t do it, China’s going to. And it’s new, it’s very popular, it’s very hot,” he said.
Trump claimed former President Joe Biden “went after it violently, and then, before the election, he changed his tune entirely” to garner the crypto vote. Biden did not run against Trump in the last election, instead handing the baton to then-Vice President Kamala Harris.