If only Boris Johnson had a clothing allowance, he might not have bestrode the world stage looking like a crumpled geography teacher caught mid-coitus in a broom cupboard.
Wait, no. Yes he would. He would look like that even if you put him through a cleansing ship dip, using a cattle prod to dunk his head under the water, and treated him to a blow-dry afterwards. There’s probably nothing you could do to Boris to make him look like he wasn’t grubbily rumpled.
Which brings us to Keir Starmer, a man who looks like he’s scrubbed himself with wire wool, and allegations a Labour donor paid thousands not just for his suits and glasses, but outfits and a personal shopper for his wife Victoria. If that was as corrupt as Boris had ever been, he’d still be in charge.
According to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, it’s jolly unfair that in the US there’s a taxpayer fund for such expenses which are part of the job. As far as Labour is concerned, it’s a slight kink in the rules that the Starmers got the wrong advice on. People are wondering why someone earning £166,000 a year cannot afford to buy his own trousers.
(
Getty Images)
Nothing’s changed fashion-wise for politicians since Edwina Currie clambered out of John Major’s bathtub and snapped oversized clip-ons onto her ears. While most of the country goes to work in either a uniform or slacks, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are expected to wear dull 1990s office wear. For women it’s power suits and chunky necklaces.
Female politicians can express themselves a little more than men with their ties, but still have to toe the line. The last lot went for long, loose hair – this front bench is populated by females who prefer a sensible bob, and Angela Rayner who couldn’t give a monkey’s cuss what you think.
For spouses we must look to the Middle Ages. Their fashion relies on the centuries-old preference for a pious, silent queen, swishing gracefully through good works while keeping her mouth shut.
It boils down, in the end, to power. How much we give them, how much they take, what they do with it and what it costs us. And while we don’t want to pay for their wardrobes, we’re reluctant to let anyone else foot the bill.
(
Splash News)
In his last year in office, David Cameron got a watch and tennis accessories from Barack Obama. Boris Johnson in his final year received shoes, ornaments, a scarf, a blanket, and an embroidered Ukrainian shirt. Theresa May got handbags, jewellery, kitchenware. Most of these items were retained by the government, which presumably is planning a hell of a car boot sale one day.
Johnson showed what being in someone else’s pocket can do to besmirch the office – whether it was organic food deliveries, accommodation, holidays, loan guarantees, or the sort of shenanigans that make your ethics advisor resign. But while the premier has a role to fill, their spouse doesn’t, and they get far more of the attention, and blame.
A wife of the PM, who is usually barely able to work and cannot leave the flat without being photographed, needs the sort of hair and makeup skills you only get with professional training and two extra arms, or a stylist on standby. Carrie Johnson had her own spokesman; Sarah Brown was allowed to ‘rent’ clothes and handbags for 10% of their value before returning them. And do you really think the Queen, or Princess of Wales, pay full price for their frocks?
Getting gifts is normal. Everyone from designers to the makers of kitchen appliances fall over themselves to have the PM’s spouse pictured in receipt of one of their items. We’ve never gone so far as the US or France, where the president has his wardrobe funded by the state. But even in those countries, the wives must fend for themselves.
We hate to think our leaders are being bought. We’d rather they were in hair shirts, ‘umble servants, yet somehow making hair shirts fashionable worldwide and creating jobs with their clothing choices.
What are the Starmers, or Britain, to do? If we do not wish an individual donor to clothe our leaders – to make them dependent for the actual clothes on their backs – then we should fund their wardrobes from general taxation. But we’re not talking Princess Anne, here. Carrie would not have recycled something Cherie left behind, and nor would Boris have been able to fit in a pair of Theresa’s kitten heels.
Yet if we do not support them as Lammy suggests, private enterprise will spot a gap in the market and a donor step in, with all the possibilities for corruption that brings. We want our leader to wear their power, but if they’re in a power suit bought by someone else who has the funds, style or contacts to do it, it’s not such a good look.
The truth is that we’re a nation of hypocrites. We want our Prime Ministers to dress like our parents, and their spouses to behave like the sort of wife Henry VIII wouldn’t have a problem with. We want them to dress to impress, but not to stand out; to promote British fashion without being a slave to whoever paid for it.
I suspect the solution is something like insisting the PM’s wardrobe bills are publicly declared, everything sourced from fashion houses with impeccable tax affairs, and donated to good causes later. That is what the Starmers have mostly done, but as with everything Labour has managed so far, it’s not very different, and could be tidied up a bit.
We have a right to ask that of our premiers, but not of their spouses: just leave those poor devils alone. If they can avoid an eating disorder and a drink problem after five years in Downing Street, then frankly they can all leave with whatever’s not nailed down, and good luck to them.