As the Guardian notes this morning:
Keir Starmer is alleged to have broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare donations of clothing for his wife from the Labour donor Waheed Alli.
The gifts to Victoria Starmer were not initially declared in the register of MPs' interests, the Sunday Times reported.
The details do not matter. What is clear is that on top of the substantial (in my opinion) sums paid by Lord Alli for clothes for Keir Starmer (including more than £2,000 for glasses) there were also significant payments made by the same person to provide clothes for Starmer's wife.
Normally I would, of course, use her own name. I haven't for good reason: she only got these clothes because she was Keir Starmer's wife; there was no other reason.
Did either of these two need such clothes?
Could they really not afford an adequate wardrobe for the tasks they had to undertake?
Were they really sure people voted for Sunak because he could afford very expensive tailor-made suits?
Are they so insecure that looking to be rich matters?
And how did they not comply with the rules?
And (let me add this), will he be paying tax on these gifts, which appear to be personal benefits in kind resulting from his appointment?
I do not, of course, know the answers to these questions. But what I do know are three things.
First, the fact that they thought they could get away without declaring clothes gifted for the use of Lady Starmer is a very bad look, at best.
Second, the vanity implicit in all this indicates that we have an incredibly shallow prime minister.
And third, Starmer has, in a stroke, made clear that his goal is to be rich. Above all else, his reason for being in office is to acquire the trappings of wealth.
He really should have stick to M&S suits and Specsavers glasses. His wife should have learned the art of the capsule wardrobe, which she could have afforded. Instead they have fallen for the trappings. That's not what I want from a prime minister.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This story is depressing on several levels. Firstly, a Labour leader is always going to come under minute scrutiny by a hostile press; it beggars belief that Starmer has not been scrupulous in adherence to the rules. Secondly, it is speaks volumes that Starmer apparently believes that he and his wife need an image more appropriate for a Kardashian than for an ordinary working person. Thirdly, overconsumption is part of the reason for the climate crisis; conspicuous displays of opulence are a very bad look — though perhaps the clothes are ethically sourced from natural materials, and designed to last a lifetime… we can hope. Finally, we yet again see rich people currying favour with politicians; the difference between this and bribery lies only in the obscurity of the quid pro quo.
Much to agree with
“Did either of these two need such clothes?”
The Keir Starmer Wife Person may “need” these clothes.
Does the wife of a Prime Minister have the same profile of The First Lady (or The First Dude in the next Presidential administration) or is the “profile” role filled by the Queen Consort and Princess of Wales?
If the Keir Starmer Wife Person has to fulfill a “profile” role, she should be flying a flag for British designers. There is no need for the Ken Starmer Wife Person to pay for clothes as the British Industrial Fashion Complex should lend her whatever she needs and after she has worn it once she gives it back to the fashion house.
The Fashion House(s) then donates all the clothes Keir Starmer Wife Person wears publicly to the Victoria & Albert Museum for exhibit. The V&A can then charge an admission fee for people to come and properly gawk.
There is no requirement for her to have a public profile, at all.
Many have not
Just before the election we saw multi million pounds donations to parties, mainly the ‘Big Three’. £93 in 2023
Would it be better to ban all but small donations from private individuals and not companies? Public funding to make up the difference would cost the equivalent of cup or two of coffee for each adult.
Just a thought.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/political-parties-accept-over-ps93m-donations-2023
I agree with it
I have thought for a long time that political parties should receive funding from the state in direct proportion to the size of their membership, and that anything beyond membership fees should be banned.
@Jonathan Williams
If public funding based on party membership came to fruition then many-many-many people would officially join the Green Party!
The capsule wardrobe; now you have lifted yourself far beyond the compass of my knowledge………..
to boldly go where no man has gone before…….
I never did like the split infinitive, but that is space travel for you.
@John S Warren
“to boldly go where no man has gone before…….”
Pull up a comfy chair and start-up the popcorn as Douglas Craig Emhoff is going there as the first “First Dude”.
Doug is going to make one killer First dude.
I strongly suspect we would never have read a story like this about Jeremy Corbyn.
The real story about Jeremy Corbyn will be released in January 2025.
I have no doubt the Jeremy Corbyn Wife Person would be no different than any other person forced to take on the “profile” of being the Prime Minster’s significant other.
I have met her, and indeed been to afternoon tea with her
I can’t see her having done this
@Richard
Thanks for the update as I have no idea who she is nor read anything about her.
It’s a bit pathetic that our PM who is on a decent whack for his role – plus expenses – can’t afford his own clothes.
The message is simple: He’s our man; we own him.
It’s just so cringeworthy, crass, and gauche that a Prime Minister should demean his office and himself by accepting such “gifts”, especially when such things must be declared so publicly.
In a corporate environment this sort of thing would be totally unacceptable – I recall the recent story of the street cleaner who wasn’t even allowed to accept a gift from local residents until it was converted into a “prize”.
I’m just left wondering if Keir keep a “tip jar” on his desk or does he just subtly hold his hand out at the end of a meeting.
Completely unacceptable in the civil service too.
My ex father in law sadly died last year.I got my oldest son a pretty decent suit from M&S for about £150 which he then wore for his graduation.
Why The Starmers cant afford to do the same is beyond me
M&S suits have always worked for me.
You can get a reasonably good kilt for just less than £50, Richard.
And while there may not be a Murphy tartan, think of the saving on underpants.
There is a Murphy tartan
Ireland has tartan too
What about the underpants???
For me alone to know
One wonders….was it another very “difficult decision”……. so galling in the face of their current policies in respect of those least well off!
Depressingly just continuing the right of entitlement/the rules do not apply to me displayed by the Tories when they were in power.
Starmer was “late” making declarations in 2022. A bit of a pattern here.
I am another with a suit from M&S that meets my requirements. And I think it is a bad look when politicians don’t declare gifts in a timely way.
But I am torn on the situation of a Prime Minister’s wife. It is an unofficial and unremunerated position, but requires a huge time commitment to public events which require a specialised wardrobe – those occasions are far “posher” than any smart events we attend and there is they need to “look the part” for photographers and broadcasters. (Plus for females their clothes choice has to stand up to detailed analysis in some parts of the press with disapproval if the same outfit appears twice; the situation was presumably easier for May’s and Thatcher’s husbands although I have never seen those tailcoats required for state occasions in M&S).
Plus I suspect the Prime Minister’s spouse might find it harder than you or me to potter off to browse in local clothes shops or charity shops.
So the gift should have been declared promptly, and it is reasonable to complain it wasn’t. But the country shouldn’t expect someone to play a major public role by virtue of their marriage without remuneration of expenses let alone pay. In the absence of that it is hard to criticise someone for covering those expenses from a donation – though I don’t like at all the sense of obligation it might create.
I don’t buy this
She should be willing to be different, not least by wearing clothes twice. Isn’t that an essential green message?
Although they are something of a dirty word on here I do have to note that our late queen, her daughter and her granddaughter in law were/are well known for wearing outfits far more than once. Perhaps when Lady S has got her capsule wardrobe she’ll follow their example.
I am becoming more and more astounded at how politically inept our supposedly intelligent PM is…
“But I am torn on the situation of a Prime Minister’s wife. It is an unofficial and unremunerated position, but requires a huge time commitment to public events which require a specialised wardrobe.”
I am a Yank so this is none of my business BUT if I were a Brit, I would want the spouse of the Prime Minister completely decked out on all public occasions in purely British fashions. If the spouse of the Prime Minister goes to a state dinner and the Queen Consort, Princess of Wales and Rose Hanbury Cholmondeley are wearing tiaras then the spouse of the Prime Minister should wear one too.
I always thought Dennis Thatcher, with his gray hair, would look great in a tiara.
I have to disagree
That is not her role
She is the wife of a man who goes to work in a suit
In the modern world there is no obligation for a politician’s spouse to play a prominent role… neither Dennis Thatcher nor Miriam Durántez (Nick Clegg’s wife) played a prominent political role in support of their partner, for example. If the marriage decides that such a role should be played, there is no reason its accessories shouldn’t be funded by the politician who thereby benefits.
Dennis Thatcher was often photographed alongside Margaret at major formal occasions, like receiving state visits. I never suggested spouses had a political role, but they do acquire a public role.
Nick Clegg was never Prime Minister, and there doesn’t seem to be the same expectation on cabinet ministers’ spouses.
I agree there is no reason why the Starmers shouldn’t make a stand on this. But his wife might find it difficult to face the sort of scrutiny the press makes of female appearance and prefer to go for the least hurtful option, given it shouldn’t be about her anyway. Or she could decline invitations, Edward Heath had no accompanying spouse and the sky didn’t fall in (depending on how you choose to describe the way his administration ended).
Sorry, but I completely disagree
When nurses are charged for car parking to go to work she can pay for her own clothes
@Richard
You do not make a good point.
I did not realize that Medical staff were charged to park for work in the UK as this does not happen in the UK.
I am not sure I follow
Was the last U.K. meant to be a US?
It is a mass e cause of grievance here
Many are fined if they are delayed with a patient at the end of their shift
Should be: “do make a good point” not “do not make a good point”.
Ah….
That makes it easier to understand
Should be “does not happen in the US” not “does not happen in the UK”.
Sorry for the typo.
He could have donated the not insignificant sums to a charity caring for the elderly struggling with fuel bills.
C’mon Starmer, be the vocal human rights & anti poverty campaigner you really are; you’ll look terrific, your ratings wii soar.
There is at least some understanding of “image engineering” from Starmer in his watch choice:
https://timeandtidewatches.com/grand-seiko-new-york-boutique-visit-tribe-video/
That Tissot PRX isn’t cheap (just under £1k on the rubber strap) but far more expensive wristwear is the usual order amongst professionals of his type.
Watch out for the upgrade to a Patek Philippe…
Does anyone need a watch these days? I gave them up some time ago.
I still wear a watch because I don’t always have my phone with me.
It’s a Casio that is accurate within a second per week, has an alarm and stopwatch (not that I often use either), is waterproof – so I can time the very slow lengths I swim for my health;
and has a digital display of the date, day of the week and time that is
clearer than that of a Rolex or Patek Philippe.
And it cost £19.99
My last one was £49.99, because I needed a strap that did not irritate my skin. Otherwise it would have been cheaper.
Replying to myself to correct the bad link (sorry):
https://www.esquire.com/uk/watches/a61515254/starmer-tissot-watch/
Not so much a matter now of keeping up appearances with Scammer & Co but one of making cringe worthy appearances! So glad I didn’t vote for these untalented and two-faced shills!
Like most people I budget to fund my own glasses. £700 a year last time I looked.
I have had a day out with my two oldest son’s hence the late comment
But if they don’t have it already surely there should be some sort of rules and support package for the partners of the PM and Leader of the Opposition at least
Why?
Was Keir Starmer wearing his £2K pair of ‘freeby’ specs when he announced the future means testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance?
I wonder…. are his suits and shoes also ‘donated’? Shirts? Socks? Underpants… ? Commando???
All these ‘tough’ decisions!
After mulling over this news story it would seem to me that given Keir Stammer’s fondness for repeatedly telling us we’re going to have to suffer economic pain for some time to come the only question that people should be asking Keir Starmer when he starts his “economic pain” spiel is “Where’s your sugar daddy (Lord Alli) today prime-minister?”
Is there even such an official role in Britain as the first lady in the US? The queen/king is the official head of the country who receives foreign VIPs and similar. What happened when Ted Heath was PM? He never married or had an official partner as it were, and seemed to manage OK at official functions.
Whatever the ethics, the political ineptitude is staggering. Are we really getting lectures on the “difficult choices” required for the management of the nation’s finances by well-paid people who can’t manage their personal finances sufficiently to clothe themselves?
[…] The ethics of the Starmer’s clothing Funding the Future […]