Latika M Bourke: Keir Starmer’s first three months as British PM have been dogged by accusations of freebies

The promise always appeared a little smug.

The pre-election black and white photograph of a bespectacled Sir Keir Starmer, in a crisp white shirt, sleeves rolled up, staring confidently at the camera promised one thing only — change.

The genius, but also drawback, of the single-word slogan was that it could mean anything to anyone desperate to see the back of the tired Tories, who disgusted the public with their cascade of cronyism scandals.

“A vote for Labour … (is a) vote for restoring honesty to politics,” Starmer promised.

“Honesty and integrity matter,” he lectured.

“I refuse to turn a blind eye to the dodgy practices in Downing Street,” he said.

“I won’t simply shrug my shoulders at the dishonesty and disrespect on the basis that it is ‘priced in’.”

Starmer vowed to lead a government where “standards stand for something; where truth means something and where honesty is at the heart of everything that it does.”

But within less than 100 days he was hoisted on his own petard when it was revealed he had not properly registered huge donations to clothe his wife and him properly and on time.

It then emerged that the Labour Party donor, Lord Waheed Alli, who paid for the clothes was given a pass to access No. 10.

This has triggered scrutiny of the scale of Starmer’s freebies and now risks defining his early days in office.

Because what is patently clear, is that Labour’s brand of change is more of the same – grift. And when it comes to Starmer, he is the grifter who keeps on grifting and unapologetically so.

Starmer’s ascent to power has been far from smooth, considering how long he and his team had to prepare for their inevitable election.

There is a bitter internal war unfolding over his high-profile and powerful chief of staff Sue Gray following the revelation that she is paid more than her boss. The Prime Minister seems set on depressing and taxing the nation while handing out massive pay rises to appease striking unions.

And then there is the grifting. According to calculations in the British press, Sir Keir has accepted close to £100,000 ($195,000) in donations ranging from extravagant £4000 ($7800) concert tickets to Taylor Swift alone as well as to Coldplay, multiple pairs of spectacles to the value of £2485 ($4850) and clothing worth £16,000 ($31,000) and accommodation worth £20,000 ($39,000).

He is also making use of a corporate box at the Emirates Stadium, the home ground of his beloved Arsenal English Premier League team.

Starmer, the self-proclaimed son of a toolmaker who rose to be a human rights lawyer and former chief prosecutor, who represents an inner-city North London constituency can not be considered a poor man.

That he should be topping the list of MPs in taking extravagant gifts is jarring with the difficult times his Government is selling to the people, including his decision to deprive pensioners of a winter fuel payment, the likelihood of higher taxes in the autumn and his personal brand in leading the supposed party of working people.

It also adds to the damaging perception that Labour now represents a metropolitan elitism that is dangerously out of touch with the working class it purports to represent.

It is true that politicians accepting freebies are considered “part of the job” rather than a “perk of the job” as Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds put it, particularly in Britain where it seems the further up the chain of the elite you travel, the more they’ll have their hands out for anything they don’t have to pay for.

That MPs, the PM and staffers are woefully underpaid compared to Australia’s politicians is only part of the explanation.

At the heart of this scandal is an inability to distinguish between what can be legitimately passed off to voters as peripheral to the job and crossing the line into being what the British call “grabby”.

This is rife across the political class and compared to Canberra, particularly acute in Westminster.

So while not confined to Starmer, he is becoming the public face of the syndrome.

Last weekend he was at Doncaster Racecourse on Saturday and the football on Sunday. “There aren’t many better days out than the races in the sunshine,” he said.

That he is finding the time to fit in so many of the perks amid all the work and briefings required for a new PM is staggering.

Whilst niggles and mistakes beset every new government, the surprise with Starmer is that he seems incapable of adapting and becomes openly tetchy about legitimate criticism.

For example, when questioned, Starmer said he would not accept lectures from the Tories given their past misdemeanours.

Then there is the answer that he gave on Monday when asked why he needed to accept a corporate box, worth nearly £9000 ($17500) per game, to watch Arsenal play.

“I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons,” he said.

“Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say: ‘Well, bad luck’.

“That’s why gifts have to be registered. But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”

He then later added that it would be unfair to police to have to station them in the stands.

It betrayed a galling lack of emotional intelligence.

As the veteran Sky News host Kay Burley put it on breakfast television, “Do you have a violin small enough for that?”

Compounding that incomprehensible response, were images of Rishi Sunak – the country’s first Hindu PM – sitting in the stands wearing a hoodie and watching a game that Conservatives subsequently posted to their social media accounts.

Currently, Starmer doesn’t have an opposition. The former PM, Sunak is technically the Opposition Leader.

But day by day he becomes even more of a lame duck, invisible and irrelevant.

Added to this is that the conservative party is gripped by its leadership contest that will take up the remainder of the year.

Some believe this drawn-out process has been a mistake. But Conservatives can afford to see it otherwise. The lack of opposition is a dangerous trap for Labour and one Starmer can’t seem to avoid.

Just like the extraordinary prolonged media honeymoon that Australia’s Anthony Albanese enjoyed, these scenarios fool governments into thinking their political radar is better than it is and are contributing to the staggering number of unforced errors both have made.

Just like Albanese, Starmer is showing how tin-eared and entirely beatable he could be once the spectre of the ugly, old corroding government has been wiped away.

However, while Albanese looks to be on course to be a one-term majority leader, Starmer has five years to identify and correct his early mistakes and ensure they are overridden and forgotten as long-ago teething problems by delivering good government.

But he will need to show judgement, humility and political agility he’s surprisingly been found lacking.