Frockgate is overhyped – but Starmer can’t ignore it

Like most of us, politicians like free things, especially when they find it difficult to justify paying for them themselves. I imagine Starmer could afford two grand for a pair of glasses. But like many people of his background, he would recoil from spending that kind of money himself.

Nor is Starmer the first PM to accept gifts from corporate and personal donors. Tony Blair enjoyed many free holidays at the homes of wealthy men, some of them businessmen and some with an obvious interest in influencing his judgement. But he did it at a time when Britain felt prosperous and most of us were holidaying more often, and in nicer places, than we had done before. Now, with public services falling apart and no real improvement in wages since 2008, there is a fierce resentment of anyone in public life who is getting something for nothing. 

This applies twofold when the public had begun to assume that Starmer was a relatively austere prime minister. He cancelled his summer holiday to deal with the riots. His tastes in sport (football), his kids’ schools (state) and holiday locations (Wales, the Lake District) suggest a capacity for endurance. Yet this has not been enough.

It is not enough because the disquiet comes not just from his enemies but his friends. The left, always hyper-alert to signs of greed or unfairness, is nodding along with the narrative. No, he hasn’t done anything wrong, not legally, not exactly, it just feels a bit profligate, bad timing, cold pensioners, why doesn’t he realise how it looks?

Recall that Starmer’s predecessor as Labour leader was a man with no interest whatsoever in his appearance. Jeremy Corbyn was vain about his principles, not his suits. The people who joined Labour to vote him in adored his lack of worldliness. 

Frugality is a powerful recommendation for some voters, especially when times are hard. Margaret Thatcher knew it and played up to her image as a thrifty housewife who managed her budget.

It is no use trying to explain that the bitchy scrutiny of what the PM’s wife is wearing has intensified since Sarah Brown’s era. Nor that since 2010 No 10 has been occupied by two wealthy fashion designers and a stylish woman in her 30s. Nor even that it is much more difficult and time-consuming for middle-aged women to dress smartly and inexpensively than it is for men — and Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner know it. 

Reeves explained that she had accepted gifts of clothing from her friend Juliet Rosenfeld so she could look “smart and well turned out”. None of this matters to those who still miss Corbyn’s purity and zeal. They wanted Labour to be better: they wanted them not to care about appearances.

As for his enemies in the right wing press, Starmer will have hoped that feeding the media tidbits about the Number 10 cats would satisfy them. “That is the news that the nation wanted to know,” Laura Kuenssberg purred — only partly tongue in cheek — when Starmer told him about the Siberian kitten. And, thankfully, the newspapers have so far respected his demand for complete privacy for his teenage children. But it was never going to be enough.

The pity of it is that there is so much that is urgent and fascinating about this new era in British politics. Most Britons care deeply about the NHS and want to know how the government intends to fix it. They’re unlikely to be interested in the finer detail of Great British Energy, but they like the idea.

Labour must be clear about who is donating what to whom.  So far, it has been. But the triviality and cynicism driving Frockgate is no way to define a government less than three months old — and no justification for writing it off. 

The freebies tell us very little about Labour’s ethics. But they reveal a lot about a public that sees how much has been taken away from them, and resents it.