Why can’t Keir pay for his own clothes and Arsenal and Coldplay tickets?

Labour may try to laugh off news that the PM and his wife have accepted free tickets, glasses and dresses, writes John Rentoul – but it’s more than a bad look

Keir Starmer faces questions over his failure to register on time high-end clothing given to his wife Victoria by a prominent party donor (PA)

You have to feel for Angela Eagle, the latest minister pushed in front of the cameras to defend the prime minister. She tried to make light of Keir Starmer accepting thousands of pounds worth of Arsenal tickets, saying, “I think he is an Arsenal fan,” and, “It takes all sorts.”

Kay Burley of Sky News was not amused. Not even a flicker of a smile when Eagle said, “I’m not sure whether [it] is possible to have an explanation” for Starmer accepting Coldplay tickets.

When Eagle, the minister for immigration, couldn’t deflect the questions with a joke, she stonewalled: “You’ll have to ask him.” At least she didn’t try to defend the prime minister by making things up about how the president of the United States and the first lady have a clothing budget – and how the Starmers accepted the donations so they could “look their best” when representing the UK – as David Lammy, the foreign secretary, did on Sunday.

The prime minister’s acceptance of donations to pay for suits, glasses and his wife’s clothes is indefensible. It would look bad at any time, but two things make it worse. One is that he is asking some pensioners on low incomes to give up their winter fuel payment because the public finances are in such a dire state. The other is that he held himself out as morally superior to Boris Johnson, who accepted donations to decorate the Downing Street flat in which Starmer now lives.

Setting higher ethical standards than Johnson ought not to be difficult and yet Starmer seems to have fallen at this low first hurdle. A clip of Starmer wagging his finger at Johnson in the Commons for failing to declare a donation on time is inevitably circulating on social media; now that Starmer has failed to declare the donation of his wife’s dresses on time.

Yet the prime minister had the front to insist, when answering journalists’ questions in Italy, that in his case the late declaration was evidence of his respect for the rules, because it was the result of his team “reaching out proactively” for further advice about disclosure.

Not only that, but Starmer pretended to aspire to higher standards than Rishi Sunak, who was accused by Labour of using helicopters and private jets when trains would do. But Sunak was the Simon Calder of Downing Street: the Man Who Pays His Way. He and his wife paid for all their clothes.

Sunak may be richer than Starmer, but Starmer’s salary is £166,000 a year, with free accommodation and travel. He can afford to pay for his and his wife’s clothes.

Despite his high moral tone in opposition, Starmer took a relaxed view of the need for openness right from the start. When he was elected leader of the Labour Party, he declared several thousands of pounds of donations for his campaign – including £100,000 from Waheed Alli – after the votes had been counted. At least one donation appeared to have been declared after the deadline for the register of MPs’ interests.

What is odd is that Alli’s donations to pay for Starmer’s suits and glasses were declared and reported before and during the general election campaign, but didn’t prompt much interest. It wasn’t until the report that Alli was given a pass to 10 Downing Street after the election, which he may have used to organise a party in the garden to thank other Labour donors, that the balloon of outrage went up.

Now, the delay in declaring his paying for Victoria Starmer’s dresses has sent it even higher. Inevitably, the opposition has torn into the hypocrisy. Andrew Rosindell, a Tory MP and shadow minister, this morning described Labour as a “government of self-service”. And it is hard for the minister for the media round to disagree.

This is all Starmer’s own fault. It is no use his protesting, as he did in Italy, that “all MPs get gifts”. They do not all accept them. Nor should they, if they lead a government that is asking children in poverty to wait for a strategy to offset the two-child limit on benefits.

We should be clear, however, what is and what is not a problem. What does not matter is Conservative allegations of cronyism. Starmer is entitled to take advice from Alli, even though he is a party supporter and donor. An early mistake in appointing Ian Corfield, another donor, to a civil service post, has been put right – and Corfield is now advising the government unpaid.

What does matter, though, is taking personal donations when asking people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is not too late for Starmer to pay it all back.