I cannot say that I am surprised that the media in the United Kingdom are yet again working themselves into a frenzy concerning donations to politicians; as Lisa Nandy the Culture secretary said on a Sky News interview – “that is the system that we have…”.  What does surprise me though is that this time the fuss seems to be about perfectly legal activity – as opposed to illegality and cover-ups…

The Prime Minister Keir Starmer along with his wife and other senior Labour politicians have been given gifts by donors, and these gifts have all been fully and properly declared.  This is the perfectly normal process and (from a legal standpoint) is all above board.  So, nothing to see here then?  Well not quite…not only do the press (unfairly?) seem to be making a large fuss over behaviour which has historically always been accepted, but it also seems to me that the excuses that the Labour politicians are offering as to why they have accepted gifts border on the bloody ridiculous:

Wes Streeting the Health Minister said that he was “…very proud of people who want to contribute not just their time and volunteering but their money to politics.  It is a noble pursuit just like giving to charity… the alternative is we ask tax payers to fund our politics”

Keir Starmer justified an accommodation expense of around £20,000 because “…there are a lot of journalists outside the front door and in the street.  I’m not complaining about that. But if you’re 13, as my girl is, if you’re 16, as my boy is, that’s quite hard to navigate when you’re concentrating on GCSEs …I promised him we would move somewhere, get out of the house and go somewhere where he could be peacefully studying.”

Tom Baldwin, Keir Starmer’s biographer also indicated that Keir Starmer was angry that is wife had been dragged into all this…

Perhaps both Tom and Sir Keir were oblivious to the fact that Vicoria Starmer had herself accepted £5,000 worth of clothing as a gift and so presumably could be considered to have dragged herself into this!

Beyond the idiotic fatuousness of the excuses themselves, beyond the otherwise specious what-aboutisms from the more liberal press outlets comparing legally-accepted gifts (Labour) to the corrupt practice of giving multi-million pound PPE contracts to your mates (Conservatives), is the simple fact that over 5 years Keir Starmer has accepted more than £107,000 in free gifts from donors – more than double the next highest amount.  To put that in perspective, the average annual salary in the UK is around £35,000 – so Keir Starmer has accepted more than three times the average annual income in gifts in less than 5 years (i.e. before he was Prime Minister).

The interesting thing in all of this from my perspective is the mentality that is displayed by the people accepting gifts:  seemingly that because it is all legal, it is therefore all perfectly normal.  The predominant view appears to be that it is normal that people in power are offered free gifts and holidays and services by rich(er) people – whilst the people working hard in positions of no power get nothing.Just to add simple perspective, because of the Anti-Corruption rules in place, my company will not allow me to accept anything with a value of more then €25 – not simply because this could be corruption, but because it has the appearance of corruption.

How is it then, that it can be seen as corruption to accept €30 from an interested party in my company, and yet a gift of €20,000 (to a politician) is perfectly innocent?

To me, there seems no logical or moral justification for any politician to accept gifts at all, let alone suits, glasses and free accommodation…  If the head of state has a sartorial standard to adopt, then it should be funded by the state or politicians should be paid sufficient to allow the standard to be followed.  And as for the ludicrous postulate from Keir Starmer that he accepts football tickets because he believes it unfair to expect the taxpayer to pay for his security is quite frankly beyond credibility.  As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom he has the right to a private life, and as such, should be protected by the state during that time…  Sir Keir must believe this, other wise it would follow that he wouldn’t allow the security forces to watch his children at school, and that their bodyguards too should be paid for by wealthy private donors.

As in many other areas, the rules for politicians (set by themselves) are looser than the rules for the general public; which leads me to the conclusion that they believe that either they themselves are special, or that their job is such that they are entitled to such gratuities.

Surely, as politicians, they are in a position to ensure (legislatively) that the country’s servants are equipped with what is needed to do the job?  If they do not believe that the £90,000 salary for a Member of Parliament is adequate for them to buy glasses, then perhaps they should review the pay mechanism to ensure that they all get a voucher for the local pharmacy every year to buy a new pair.

But of course they couldn’t pass legislation to that end, because it is abundantly clear that a salary of £90,000 is perfectly adequate for glasses, and suits and holidays…  I can only conclude therefore that MPs indulge in this practice knowing – and not caring –  that it is morally reprehensible. Hence the reason for the furore…

After years of corruption and sleaze, the incoming government (having criticised the crass indulgence and rule-breaking of its predecessor), shows a starkly similar level of venality.  Labour maybe choosing suits and glasses instead of overly-expensive wallpaper, but the message is still the same – shit for free.

I suppose we should be grateful to the hypocritical press for allowing us to see just how indefensible and unjustifiable this behaviour is – legal or not, it is beyond the pale.