Sir Keir Starmer’s first speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street had a clear theme: service. The Prime Minister sought to contrast his new Labour administration with the disorder of its Conservative predecessor as he promised “a return of politics to public service”.
“When the gap between the sacrifices made by people and the service they receive from politicians grows this big, it leads to a weariness in the heart of a nation,” Starmer declared.
The implication was clear: the Tories had let down the British people with self-serving behaviour that ranged from rows about golden wallpaper to “Partygate” to Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. But Starmer would fix this by bringing the adults back to government.
It fitted a pattern. When in opposition, Starmer regularly promised to clean up politics. That pledge formed a part of the Labour manifesto. So it is of some concern to Labour MPs that fewer than 100 days into his premiership, sleaze is already back on the agenda, this time relating to their own side.
The Prime Minister has suffered one of his most testing weeks. His ministers had to spend it talking not about the toxic inheritance left by the Tories, but about the pros and cons of corporate boxes at Arsenal, the wardrobe of Starmer’s wife, Lady Victoria, and Taylor Swift.
Starmer is facing questions about donations he has received from the Blairite Lord Alli, his penchant for freebies (he has taken more than £100,000 worth – more than any other major party leader of recent times), and whether infighting in No 10 is making his government dysfunctional.
Signs of trouble among his aides increased this week after a hostile briefing to the BBC revealed that Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, earns £3,000 a year more than the Prime Minister. Under pressure, Starmer has now said that he, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves will not accept clothing donations in future. But that decision came days after ministers had to contort themselves into various positions as they responded to questions.
The problem is that Starmer spent much of his time in opposition making hay out of stories like this. Of course, it is hard to argue that accepting a pair of tickets to Swift’s Eras tour and declaring it is equivalent to the row about Boris and Carrie Johnson’s refurbishment of the No 10 flat. But confusion over a Downing Street pass to a donor who has gifted clothes to Starmer is at least worthy of scrutiny. Yet Labour politicians often seem affronted when pressed on these questions.
As one Labour figure puts it: “They don’t seem to understand the optics. If you are cutting winter fuel for pensioners, you can’t claim that the Prime Minister’s salary isn’t enough to buy a suit.”
The disclosure of Gray’s high salary is also unhelpful to the “there’s no money” narrative. MPs fear that the party is tripping into “do as I say, not as I do” territory. By going so big on cleaning up politics, Starmer, known by some as Mr Rules, has made a rod for his own back.
Having now changed tack on receiving free clothes, he will probably come under further pressure on the rest. But a wider clampdown on freebies would go down like a cup of cold sick with Labour staff already unhappy with their pay deals. “If that became government-wide, there would be a staff revolt,” says a party source.
It is a tempting game to play in opposition. Tony Blair did it too, once suggesting that his government – in contrast to John Major’s – would be whiter than white. He later spoke of his regret, saying: “It was a media game – and in opposition we played it. The goals were easy, but the long-term consequences were disastrous.”
Starmer may have sympathy with that conclusion, but he has boxed himself in. Rather than ban all government perks, one option could be to have a serious conversation about what we expect of our politicians. Are their salaries enough for what we expect them to do? Should donors be allowed access to the politicians they help? If a prime minister pays for their own suits, should we be so quick to blast their personal wealth?
Given his past comments, Starmer is not best placed to call for nuance on all of the above. But that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t try.
'President Musk' is flexing his muscles and revealing how weak Trump is