Voters will find it hard to forgive Starmer’s arrogance

It’s the double standards that will get them in the end.

Even for someone like me, who returned to their traditional Labour loyalty at the last election and who desperately wants this government to succeed, it has been a painful experience to watch ministers spin, pivot and prevaricate over the latest revelations of cash for access to Downing Street.

And yet the touchstone, the standard by which they should judge themselves, is an obvious one. They should conduct this simple thought experiment, bearing in mind that a high degree of honesty is required to ensure the results are reliable: Ministers must ask themselves whether, as members of the Opposition, would they have pounced on a Conservative Prime Minister for the behaviour that Keir Starmer has exhibited since July 4?

If a Conservative Party donor had funded the offices of seven Tory cabinet ministers, had donated six-figure sums to help the Prime Minister buy suits and spectacles, had funded the purchase by the prime minister’s wife of several items of her wardrobe, and had also been given a pass to Downing Street to allow him to come and go as he pleased, would Labour be seeking to capitalise on the situation?

If the cash handed over to the PM’s wife had not been declared as parliamentary rules dictate, and if the Tory donor in question had used his privileged access to Number 10 to host a reception for other party donors, would Labour opposition spokespersons have maintained a dignified silence?

Given that we all know the answers to these questions, Labour is in what fans of British understatement might describe as a bit of as pickle.

Had Boris Johnson done precisely what Keir Starmer is now doing – accepting complimentary Taylor Swift tickets and thousands of pounds worth of hospitality, including the use of a box at his favourite football club, and much else besides, placing him at the top of the league of politicians’ freebies - there can be no doubt that Labour MPs would have shouted themselves hoarse, both in the Commons and in every TV studio in the land, as they sought to convince everyone (again) that Johnson was the devil incarnate.

Allegations that Johnson was presiding over a Tory kleptocracy would be repeated ad nauseum in Labour MPs’ outraged Tweets and press releases.

And all of that would be as nothing compared to the tsunami of abuse that would have followed a simultaneous decision by the government to abolish the winter heating allowance for better off pensioners. “Boris and Carrie show off their new wardrobe as old people freeze in their homes and Tory donor parties in Downing Street garden” is the sort of headline that could well have started the governing party on an inexorably downward slide to electoral catastrophe.

How is the current situation in Downing Street any different or any better?

Harriet Harman, an elder statesperson of the Labour Party, offered Starmer some much-needed advice this morning by suggesting the prime minister stop trying to justify his acceptance of all the freebies he has accumulated since becoming leader of his party.

He certainly has made a hash of that strategy in recent days, seeming to pour scorn on the very idea that he would sit in the stand at the Emirates stadium with ordinary fans, rather than be accommodated in a hospitality box (cost to you and me: £8000 a pop).

Lord Alli himself, however, is hardly the villain of the piece. He is a successful businessman, a media mogul and Labour member of the House of Lords, and has been a recognisable and visible presence in the party’s establishment for decades. He is perfectly entitled to spend his money however he likes.

As always with such stories, it is the behaviour of the recipients of donors’ largesse, not the donor himself, that has raised eyebrows and questions about the judgment of senior Ministers.

A key part of the rules governing those who hold public office is that their behaviour must not only be honest, transparent and accountable, but that it should be seen to be so. Public perception is all.

It’s faintly charming that Starmer should imagine that registering all his freebies and donations according to the rules (which he didn’t quite manage to do) is enough to protect him or his ministers from any criticism. But that is simply not enough for most voters.

It is often said, not least by Labour supporters themselves, how surprising and discouraging it has been that this government has started to make so many errors in such a short space of time, entirely wasting what public excitement existed following its landslide-winning victory less than three months ago.

Any opportunity to take advantage of a political “honeymoon” during this administration’s first 100 days has been completely wasted by Starmer’s inability to understand how his personal behaviour has been perceived.

And like Lord Alli, the prime minister does not stand accused of corruption. It’s much worse than that. It’s crassness. It’s a lack of political instinct. It’s a complete failure to understand how public policy – the withdrawal of pensioners’ heating allowances – and private behaviour can collide in a truly toxic reaction.

It’s arrogance. And for voters, that is something they will find hard to forgive.

Keir Starmer’s only silver lining is that unlike previous Conservative prime ministers, he is facing a distracted opposition without a leader and without the ability to hold him to exactly the same standard to which he insisted on holding Johnson and his successors.