THEY are not all the same.

Let’s be clear – having someone buy you a suit and a few pairs of glasses (expensive though they may be) is not comparable to actually being fined for breaking lockdown laws. Or lying to parliament. Or illegally proroguing parliament. Or trying to hide who gave you £100,000 to redecorate your flat.

The confected outrage over Sir Keir Starmer receiving £100,000 of donations since 2019 (not in one fell swoop, as Boris Johnson did for the facelift of his Number 10 flat) is ridiculous. But it’s not surprising.

Let’s also be clear, at no point has anyone pretended this faux-fury is about anything to do with actual policy, you know, anything of substance. It is purely a confected scandal, really, a chance to call a new Labour Government ‘as bad as the other lot, probably worse…’.

And predictably enough, those most outraged by the PM’s behaviour – which happens to be entirely within parliamentary rules, no matter what you think of it – are many of the same who had absolutely no problem with Boris’ birthday party that broke lockdown laws, or with Rishi Sunak’s myriad helicopter trips, some in donors’ choppers, or indeed, the millions in donations to the Conservative party they support from Diane-Abbott-hater-in-chief, Frank Hester (and his company actually does benefit from millions earned through government contracts, so there’s that).

When you look at these side by side, it’s ridiculous this story has led the front pages for days and days. Or is it?

The likes of the Mail, the Telegraph (affectionately known as the Torygraph, of course) and the Express have always been willing to sacrifice any pretence at actual integrity, if it serves their right-wing, small and big-c conservative agenda.

Let’s not forget the Mail front page after the Liz Truss mini budget that almost collapsed our economy: ‘At last! A true Tory budget’, it said. It’s also worth noting another admirer of the Truss/Kwarteng embarrassment was one Nigel Farage, who called it “the best Conservative budget since 1986”. Ah, 1986, the year the UK saw 3 million unemployed, and Jeffrey Archer resigned as deputy chair of the Conservative Party over allegations concerning prostitutes…

But anyway, that verdict on the low point of the worst prime-ministerial reign in history aged well. Less than 24 hours, if I remember correctly.

And let’s also remember another front-page, boasting the famous ‘Enemies of the people’ headline about, checks notes, judges, who ensured Britain remains a country governed by laws and not the whims of Eton-educated serial adulterers.

So, to coin a Starmer-ism, I will take no lectures from these people on ‘appropriate behaviour’, thanks all the same. Their calls for ‘integrity’ and accusations of impropriety are as flimsy as the paper they are printed on.

Some, er, ‘classic’ Mail front pages from recent years…

If they had any decency at all, after those front pages and endorsements, a front-page apology would be the only appropriate behaviour from the Mail.

That said, it doesn’t mean I endorse MPs and PMs taking donations from the likes of Lords, whether it’s Boris Johnson’s £23,000+ from JCB boss Lord Bamford for his – checks notes again – third wedding, or Sir Keir Starmer’s £2,000 for ‘luxury eyewear’.

But I, unlike many at the Mail et al, consider actual facts when making judgements. The new PM has not broken any rules, as far as I can see – nor has it even been claimed, in any serious way. And he has not tried to hide these donations.

Technically, he has done absolutely nothing wrong. So, equating these non-offences with egregious wrong-doing of the past – even saying it’s worse, somehow – is preposterous and insulting to their readers, but then, they’ve never cared about that before.

But I still don’t like the, ‘technically it’s not against the rules’ line. It’s not a good one.

You can almost hear some hapless Conservative minister – usually Mel Stride – saying it (for the third day in a row) on the red BBC Breakfast sofa, can’t you?

“The Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, Naga, these donations were all within the rules, blah blah blah…”

It became a daily phrase in those heady days of deceit and depravity, didn’t it?

But often, they had actually done something wrong. Here, the Prime Minister clearly hasn’t.

Still, that doesn’t mean it passes the smell test.

I don’t like it. Just as many clearly-awful actions by Johnson and his cohort of cretins were ‘within the rules’, I didn’t like them, and it gave an impression of our political class being not just a cut above the rest of us, but actually living on a rules-free planet entirely of their own, where they can effortlessly beam back to Earth to say one thing, then beam straight back to planet politician and do completely the opposite.

I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.

That’s not to say anything Sir Keir Starmer has done ranks anywhere near the myriad misadventures of the Conservatives in recent years, from the Owen Patterson lobbying scandal, to Boris’ lying to his colleagues and the country.

No, this feels more like a naïve, childish mistake, of an innocent new boy who was led astray by temptation and his friends telling him ‘everyone does it’. It’s not against the rules, per se, but it is against how I would like people to behave.

And like a parent addressing their child, my reaction is not to scream, to shout, or produce a howling front-page headline calling for Starmer to face any punishment short of execution (which I wouldn’t rule out in the Mail on Sunday, mind).

No, my tactic for dealing with this would be to have a word. To lean in, put on my best ‘mum voice’ and say, very calmly, ‘I’m not angry, Prime Minister, I’m just disappointed’.

Because I am.

This Labour Government was supposed to be a departure from the debacle we all witnessed in recent years; A cleansing of corruption, the actual implementation of the ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability’ Rishi Sunak promised us on the steps of Downing Street, right before he promptly turned around and gave the recently-disgraced Suella Braverman her job back…

Anyway, this time, things were supposed to be different. And I’m sure they will be, in many, may ways.

Rishi Sunak promising ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level’ as he became PM. Picture: Number 10

But for now, Sir Keir needs to be whiter than white. Not because he fears the right-wing parasites looking to suck off any perceived snippet of scandal, but because we need him to be whiter than white. Democracy needs him to be whiter than white.

After so long rolling our eyes and shaking our heads at the improbable awfulness of politicians’ behaviour, we are crying out for someone with basic decency to lead us into a land where hope is not simply a three-word slogan slapped on a bus, discarded at the earliest opportunity, but something we all believe will happen.

And for that, we need to believe the person telling us.

This whole affair feels sad. Disappointing, like when your favourite childhood pop star turns out to enjoy getting drunk at the weekend. It’s not wrong, necessarily, but it bursts that bubble of idealism, previously gliding effortlessly through our peripheral vision and our minds…

Perhaps those glasses will prove the best £2,000 ever spent, because Sir Keir might now see that bubble too.

Please, Prime Minister, do not to disappoint me again, even if what you’re doing is within the rules, and even if our press is pathetic.

Show us how – unlike the ever-predictable right-wing rags – you are not all the same.

PAUL JONES
Editor in Chief
Do you agree? You can email me at paul@blackmorevale.net. Just try and be nice. Thanks!