Morning Call: Labour’s bad news cycle
Why Keir Starmer’s fondness for freebies has become a political problem.
Good morning, it’s George here. Political attention is moving towards Labour’s conference, which begins on Sunday in Liverpool. I’ve interviewed Wes Streeting for this week’s magazine – we discuss the government’s killjoy image, the NHS crisis and his disagreements with Tony Blair.
The headlines have not made happy reading for Labour in recent days. Below I explain what’s behind a run of bad news.
To enjoy our latest analysis of politics, news and events, in addition to world-class literary and cultural reviews, click here to subscribe to the New Statesman. You’ll enjoy all of the New Statesman’s online content, ad-free podcasts and invitations to NS events.
In politics, there are few deadlier charges than that of hypocrisy. It’s one that Labour is facing as Keir Starmer’s fondness for freebies comes under scrutiny.
The story began with the revelation that the Prime Minister failed to declare £5,000 of clothes donated to his wife by the Labour peer and fixer Waheed Alli. Starmer – who assailed Boris Johnson over “wallpapergate” in the Commons in 2021 – has insisted that his team “reached out proactively” to the parliamentary authorities (the parliamentary standards commissioner has rejected Conservative demands to open an investigation).
But attention has now turned to Starmer’s long-running enjoyment of hospitality. The Guardian calculates that he has now declared £100,000 worth of free tickets (including Arsenal, Taylor Swift and Coldplay) and gifts (including clothing and glasses) – more than any other major leader in recent times.
It’s wrong, as some commentators have, to describe this as a “scandal”. First, there is no suggestion that any rules were broken. Second, there is no evidence that any improper influence was sought or received by donors. (Johnson, by contrast, failed both of these tests.)
But this doesn’t mean there isn’t a political problem for Labour. The first issue, as I noted, is that of hypocrisy: when a leader’s actions conflict with their chosen image. Think of the ridicule heaped on the eco-friendly David Cameron in 2006 after it was revealed that a car followed behind him with his briefcase when he cycled to work.
As opposition leader, Starmer delighted in challenging Rishi Sunak over his wife’s former non-dom status and his fondness for private jets. The government made much of its recent decision to cancel a £40m VIP helicopter contract used by the former prime minister. This is all well and good, but it naturally prompts greater scrutiny of Starmer’s own financial affairs.
The second issue is austerity (one reason the Labour leader’s attacks on his Conservative opponents often resonated). A government imposing tax rises or spending cuts will always be vulnerable to the charge that it’s living the high life. That applies to Labour now as it removes winter fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners. “He’s taking £300 off pensioners and taking £76,000 of freebies,” declared Sky News’s Kay Burley to immigration minister Angela Eagle yesterday.
We know that the government didn’t carry out an impact assessment of the winter fuel cuts. But what some in Labour are asking is whether it did a political impact assessment. Cuts to benefits – emotive and easily understood – will always have spill-over effects. While some of George Osborne’s austerity measures were highly popular (such as the two-child benefit limit), the removal of winter fuel payments is a relatively unpopular one.
It all adds to the sense that this government is struggling to tell a positive story about itself. There has been no shortage of policy activity: planning reform, the launch of GB Energy, public ownership of the railways and buses, workers’ rights and the settling of the public sector pay disputes. But what is the project that all of this collectively amounts to? Explaining that is one of the defining tasks for Labour at its conference.
In my interview with Wes Streeting – one of Labour’s best communicators – he says of the Conservatives: “It feels like being the fire brigade hosing down the house while the arsonists are heckling you for not doing a good enough job.”
It’s a good line and one that Labour would be wise to make greater use of. But as the party is learning, one of the biggest challenges in government is avoiding setting fire to yourself.
George’s picks
Megan on the fallout from pager explosions in Lebanon.
Will explains how Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover backfired.
Ben analyses the state of the US election race.
Christopher Grimes on how Netflix won the streaming wars (Financial Times)
Our investments in both the North Sea and in developing new lower carbon energy projects help to support the UK economy. bp spent £5.3 billion with UK suppliers last year and contributed an estimated £17.1 billion overall to the UK’s GDP. See how bp has been backing Britain.
Mailshot
Guardian: Reports say Israel put explosives in thousands of pagers
Independent: Starmer donations row continues
NYT: “Human rights abyss” in Myanmar as military kills civilians
Janan Ganesh: Why Europe won’t catch the US
George Monbiot: The anti-flood system is a scandal
Gabrielle Giffords: It’s always the guns
Michelle Goldberg: It was only a matter of time before abortion bans killed someone
Matt Feeney: Read like a man
Cat Zhang: A novel for dating defeatists
Cinnamon the capybara “living best life” on the run from Shropshire zoo
And with that…
Let me know what you think about today’s Morning Call by hitting reply. My thanks to Chris Bourn and George Monaghan.
Have a great day, I’ll be back with you tomorrow.
George — @georgeeaton
It absolutely should be a problem. Over the last 14 years, we’ve had enough corruption and sleaze to last a lifetime. Everybody else has to pay their own way - politicians should not be any different.
Is there any sort of limit to the value or type of hospitality and gifts and MP or minister is allowed to accept? Even in the USA, where the degree to which bribery in all but name is legalized and even integral to the electoral process, it is illegal for elected officials to accept the sorts of gifts British PMs (and, for that matter, monarchs) seem to routinely accept.
Perhaps it's just an odd choice about what is considered okay and what's not: Integral Britain tickets to a Taylor Swift concert is fine but cash for honours is a scandal. In the USA concert tickets would lead to a corruption investigation but a campaign contribution of several million dollars being rewarded with an ambassadorship is expected.