Should politicians have a clothing allowance?

Keir Starmer has brushed off suggestions taxpayers should pay for his wardrobe as he faces mounting anger over designer clothes gifted to his wife by a Labour donor.

With the so-called "wardrobe-gate" controversy rolling into its third day, the PM "slapped down" comparisons with the US, where the president gets a generous expense allowance, and said the public shouldn't be forced to pay, reported The Mirror.

'Nasty stink'

The "demands" on Victoria Starmer's wardrobe certainly go "beyond those of the ordinary working Briton", said The Times, going on to explain "whether at banquets with royalty or as a plus-one at world summits, an off-the-peg frock from Zara is unlikely to cut it". But failure to disclose the gift "may remind some of the Johnson era's excesses", it added.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

"What in the name of God was Starmer thinking accepting free clothes for himself and his wife from a rich party donor?" Isabel Oakeshott asked on social media. "Being that stupid" should be an "immediate disqualification for leading our country", the journalist subsequently answered.

This "Frocky Horror Picture Show" has a "nasty stink to it", said Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, because as Starmer "denies millions of pensioners their winter fuel allowances", he and his wife are benefiting from "questionable largesse". Why could this "undeniably well-off couple" not "dip into their own bank accounts" to cover the cost of clothes and styling advice, she wondered.

The Starmers "live rent free in Downing Street" and earn an estimated £200,000 a year between them, wrote Sam Leith in The Spectator. Did it not "occur" to the couple that it would have been best to "play it safe" and "reach into their own pockets to pay for their personal shopper".

'High fashion'

During an interview with Sky News, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was clear when asked if the taxpayer should pay for Starmer's wife's clothes: "No, of course not", she said, "that's not the way that we do things in this country".

Yet the foreign secretary has claimed it is common practice for political donors to pay for outfits for prime ministers and their spouses and suggested other countries had princely taxpayer-funded budgets for leaders' garments.

Speaking on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, David Lammy said that US presidents and first ladies have a "huge budget, paid for by the taxpayer", so that they "look their best on behalf of the US people".

In fact, noted the BBC, although the US first lady’s fashion choices attract "immense scrutiny and attention", she "does not have access to a specific clothing budget" and many have "shared frustration at the cost of staying fashionable in the White House".

Spouses of world leaders in other countries "generally appear to rely on donations for their style choices", the broadcaster added. In France, Brigitte Macron does not have a state-funded budget for clothes and is thought to be lent outfits by Parisian "high fashion houses" such as Louis Vuitton.

Ministers in Germany were criticised for spending €450,000 on hairdressers, makeup artists and photographers in the first six months of 2023, but there does not appear to be a "specific fund for clothing".