Labour’s moral posturing has backfired spectacularly
The scandal which has taken hold at the heart of the new Labour government – primarily associated with party donor Lord Alli – exposes the party's two-tier approach to parliamentary standards and ethics.
As Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer promised "change" – a politics of service, decency, and accountability. This would mean conducting politics in a different way, providing a sharp contrast from the moral indecency and lack of ethics at the heart of Tory-led government.
Taking aim at former PM Boris Johnson, Starmer – setting out his "contract" with the British people – said he did not believe that politics is a branch of the entertainment industry. Branding himself as a paragon of piety, Starmer was photographed shopping for wallpaper in John Lewis – poking fun at Johnson's eye-watering Number 10 refurbishment costs (with much of this funded by British entrepreneur Lord Brownlow).
Now, a few months into his tenure as Prime Minister, "Mr Rules" now has two unflattering and somewhat related nicknames: "two-tier Keir" and "free-gear Keir".
Starmer has received substantially more freebies than any other MP since becoming Labour leader. Excluding legal fees, the MP for Holborn & St Pancras has received more than £107,000 worth of gifts – comfortably ahead than the runner-up, fellow Labour politician and current Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, who took in just over £40,000.
Presents have landed on other members of the Starmer family, with the Prime Minister's wife Victoria gifted £5,000 of clothes paid for by donor Lord Alli. The former director of public prosecutions should be asked how he feels about another man's money being used for his own wife's fancy dresses. It hardly shows him to be a man of pride.
The PM has said he will not accept any more free clothes from donors over "wardrobe-gate". Deputy PM Angela Rayner and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have also made the same pledge. But there has been little in the way of a proper apology, suggesting the party suffers from a fundamental lack of remorse and humility.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson had a smile on her face as Sir Trevor Phillips informed the audience that she had taken a £14,000 donation from Lord Alli to throw a birthday bash , bizarrely seeking to justify it on the grounds of the party supposedly being a work-related event involving journalists, trade unionists, and those in the education sector. In a separate occasion, Phillipson was gifted Taylor Swift tickets declared at £522 – saying that it was a "hard one to turn down" and that one of her children was keen to attend the global music icon's show. A car-crash interview of epic proportions.
Why are these leading Labour politicians so blind to their own breathtaking hypocrisy, having a history of condemning Tory opponents for the very kinds of donor-connected indiscretions they are guilty of? Traditionally identifying with the Left and being a member of a trade union, I believe that it boils down to those involved in Labour politics believing they are entitled to indulge in such unethical behaviour because they have convinced themselves that they are morally decent overall.
Being on the supposedly "virtuous" side on matters of social justice and committing to the "progressive" holy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion, means that all these covered-for treats are richly deserved – like luxury clothing, overseas stays in elite apartments, and expensive birthday parties: the perks of fighting the good fight.
In their eyes, the "nasty" Tories are morally indecent on the whole – so when they indulge in similarly unethical forms of behaviour, it is completely unacceptable. They are not deserving of such treats and must be hounded. This is a shamelessly two-tier approach to parliamentary standards and ethics which undermines the very concept of good governance in modern Britain.
Being a politician of the Left, expressing concern over the cost-of-living crisis occasionally, believing in the NHS, and taking the knee for BLM as a gesture of racial solidarity , does not mean one is more deserving of enjoying luxuries funded by a donor.
Labour have burned through whatever political capital it had after it was elected on a low turnout and underwhelming share of the vote. This is not the duty-oriented politics of change – this is business as usual at the heart of Westminster politics, and it stinks.
