The questions from broadcasters over freebies were blunt: “Do you get it, though?” and “Can’t you see how it looks?” Judging from the responses given by Sir Keir Starmer and Jonathan Reynolds, the worrying answer appears to be: not really. Of course, as Sir Keir said, there are “human explanations” for his decision to accept hospitality worth tens of thousands of pounds from Premier League football clubs – chiefly that he wants to continue to attend Arsenal games with his son safely. The free loan of a central London flat over the election period was also put down to family circumstances.
But at a time when public confidence in political and other institutions is fragile, and party loyalties less secure than ever before, the fallout from the PM’s declaration of interests including £107,000-worth of gifts is a clumsy own goal. Nor can it be dismissed as a one-off error, when several senior colleagues are also involved. Labour won office on a promise of change that explicitly referred to conduct as well as policy. Sir Keir’s pride in his working-class background, and the values of decency and tenacity he took from it, were a key part of his pitch to voters – and a point of difference with the Tories, whom Labour pilloried for cronyism and a lack of probity.
It is remarkable, given this background and the emphasis placed by Sir Keir on public service, that he and his advisers were not more alive to the risks associated with donations. These are particularly acute in relation to football. The Premier League is lobbying to water down the powers of a new regulator. The danger is not only that the PM and others forfeit public trust in general, but that specific policies are (or appear to be) tainted. It has also emerged that Quadrature Capital, a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands with fossil fuel investments, donated £4m to the Labour party in May, giving rise to questions about the recently appointed climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, who is linked to Quadrature Climate Foundation.
In his conference speech, the Labour leader made a joke about the British public’s dislike of politicians. It ought to be an advantage to see this clearly. And yet, somehow, he and others decided that the cynical mood did not apply to them; that their good intentions could insulate them from public anger at the spectacle of those at the top of society enjoying perks that most people can only dream of.
The place of money in politics is a complicated issue. Of course, individuals and organisations use their resources, financial and human, to advance their aims and interests. But in a functioning democracy, the influence of funders – the most powerful of whom are businesses – is mediated through public opinion and parliament. Laws must not be bought or seen to be bought.
Labour should not be judged on this issue alone, and voters are unlikely to abandon the party en masse. They will wait to see if the government can deliver promised improvements to the NHS. But Downing Street must not be complacent. For ministers to be linked so early on to questions about paid-for lobbying could do serious damage to this government – as it once did to Tony Blair.
Rebuilding public trust in politics, and not only in their party, is arguably the single biggest challenge facing Labour, and is key to blocking the rise of the populist right. The ministerial code must be updated quickly. Less than three months in, the government needs to turn over a new leaf.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
