Almost everything Labour said about the freebies was a mistake

To judge from the tone and pace of media coverage, you would hardly guess it’s the previous, not the incumbent government that was among the sleaziest and most corruptible in British history. From the moment Parliament came back in September, Labour has been on the defensive about taking a dizzying array of freebies and favours from party donors: from clothes to Arsenal and Taylor Swift tickets to the use of luxury houses - both as sets for speeches and interviews (ok) and as study spaces for GCSESs (weird).

And the explanations have been almost as numerous as the freebies. We’ve had, in no particular order, and sometimes simultaneously, assertions that it was entirely legal and transparent, that the other guys were worse, that we’ll give all or some of the money back, and, finally and repeatedly, that it was all for the children - the MPs’ and the prime minister’s, that is.

“It is essential that Labour understands Toryism does not become it, neither in policy nor in conduct.”

The first and second excuse were factually true; the third a little contradictory; and the fourth response could have been custom-made to invite derision. Of all the things Labour has said so far, this theme is the most likely to come back to bite the government - deservedly so - when it digs in over its bizarre fixation on retaining the 2-kid benefit cap in the coming Budget. My kids get Taylor Swift tickets but yours won’t even get three meals a day; Change Begins. 

But in a sense, none of these particular stumbles matter. The entire attitude, of trying to bat away each little muckraking ball on its own terms, is detrimental, to Labour and to British democracy as a whole - both of whom suffer when voters become convinced that all politicians are the same and will always prioritise their own over their constituents; the biggest possible gift to far-right populists.

It also all but guarantees the needling will continue: expect many more stories to come out in dribs and drabs over months and years, only to bait Labour MPs to make self-damaging excuses. It’s essential that Labour understands that Toryism doesn’t become it, neither in policy nor in conduct. Xenophobia and grift are now taken for granted with the Tories; but Labour is rightly held to different standards, because otherwise what’s the point.

“What a poor ‘party of change’ we’d be if we let the party of Boris Johnson and Michelle Mone set the yardstick for integrity.”

Here is what Labour should have done instead - and what it can still do, if it remembers it was elected as a change, rather than a continuity party. Keir Starmer should stand at the despatch box and declare: “We have won this election fighting by the rules of the system we want to change. It’s true that everything we did was legal, and it’s true our predecessors were far worse; no matter. What a poor party of change we’d be if we let the party of Boris Johnson and Michelle Mone set the yardstick for integrity. We have the clearest possible mandate to create new standards, ones that adhere much clearer to the fairness the British people so clearly and so rightly expect from their politicians. With this in mind, I am ordering a review of election spending that will consider all gifts and favours received by members for all parties within the last calendar year; and that will propose a comprehensive and comprehensible reform of that spending well before the next General Election.”

And then, the secret ingredient: actually go and do it. That’s it. He might be jeered by the Tories and by the other parties; so much the worse for the Tories and the other parties. Keir Starmer may be more comfortable arguing clause by clause and line by line, but he - and his speechwriters and advisors - need to finally come to grips with the fact that they’ve won: that they have the biggest mandate since Thatcher to rewrite the very narrative of the country and what it means to be British. If they don’t start acting like it, they deserve every round of drubbing that they get.

Are you affected by the two-child benefit cap? If sp, would you consider sharing your story with us? We won’t publish your name without your permission, but we may contact you discreetly to clarify details.