BBC is SHAMEFUL for failing to cover Starmer taking £5k from donor for wife's dresses - Kelvin MacKenzie
Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria when to the Doncaster Races
PA
Don't Miss
Most Read
Trending on GB News
Being sly comes easily to Sir Keir Starmer. When faced, prior to the General Election, with a ‘’kind offer’’ from a wealthy businessman to pay for clothes for his wife Victoria he could have made any number of decisions, all of which in the long run will turn out to be a lot less damaging than the one he took.
He could have said no thank you and pointed out it was unusual for another man to pay for your wife’s outfits. He could have said I am worth a lot of money (estimates are put at £10million) and if I become Prime Minister I’ll be on £166,000 and therefore quite capable of buying my wife dresses out of my own pocket.
He could have said my wife, an independent lady who wants little to do with my political life, has held down a job with the NHS for a longtime now and I’m sure would prefer to pay for look out of the £50,000-a-year she earns.
He could have said that is very good of you but as it’s on the run up to an Election, I think the public should know and therefore I will take the £5,000 but will announce it.
After all, I have put Tory PMs to the sword over the last few years about their excesses (gold-leafed wallpaper and the like) and it’s quite clear that the public get very angry when they see these kind of freebies.
Starmer rejected all these avenues. He decided to create his own little deviosity and it has blown up in his face. First of all, he accepted £20,000 in clothes and glasses for himself from the businessman Lord Walli who made his fortune of £200million out of the media.
He kept quiet about that until after the General Election and then used the Sunday Times to reveal it. But he knew the gift to Victoria would be the one that would cause the problem, so he decided to keep that to himself and a group of Labour Party officials.
But journos started sniffing about and it became clear that Starmer would have broken parliamentary rules by failing to disclose so Starmer turned to a friendly media (The Sunday Times told its readers to vote Labour) and revealed that Victoria had bought a lot of outfits thanks to Alli’s generosity.
Social media exploded in disgust at the deal. The news sites covered the scandal extensively, but our old friends the television networks wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. I broke the habits of a lifetime and watched last night’s BBC 10pm news to see what their coverage looked like.
There wasn’t any, but there was a long piece about floods in Europe which they thought more important than the Prime Minister’s wife being dressed for free. That was shocking news judgment. I’ve nothing against Lord Alli, an engaging chap, but how on earth did the conversation start about her not being able to afford dresses.
Did he raise it, did she or more or more likely did an aide? Did they suggest there would be a pay back of a political nature in the future? I think we should be told.
Starmer has enjoyed and burnished his Mr Clean reputation. That has now been destroyed. His decision to take the money will hang round his neck for the duration of this Parliament.
Despite the size of the Labour majority, I have always believed, and said so repeatedly in this organ, that this would not be anymore than a one-term Parliament. We are literally three months in and already there’s not a pensioner who has a good word for him.
Add the fallout of dressgate and the upcoming nightmare of Rachel Thieves and her October 30 tax-till-you-die Budget and you can see there is no possibility of any sensible person voting twice for this lot.
One final thought. Have you noticed how much time Starmer spends outside the country? Italy, Germany, the United States. There's a very good reason and he discovered it at Doncaster races on Saturday afternoon.
As he walked through the crowd there was a murmur that turned into a roar. The racegoers were not shouting encouragement, they were shouting w*****.
And they were speaking for the nation.