As violence once more threatens the US presidential election, the Russian-Ukraine war reaches a dangerous crossroads, and thousands flee deadly flooding in Europe linked to climate change, we gather here today to talk about frocks.

Not just any old frocks. These are special frocks, even more special than Marks and Spencer frocks, worn as they are by Victoria Starmer, wife of the Prime Minister.

These frocks, it has emerged, were paid for by Lord Alli, a major Labour donor and fundraiser, together with the cost of a personal shopper. The value of the gift is thought to be north of £5,000 but the precise amount won’t be known until the Prime Minister discloses it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which he initially failed to do.

He did, however, disclose his own haul from Lord Alli, including £16,200 for “work clothing” and £2,485 for specs (for that money they better be varifocals). The row over the gifts, and particularly the frocks, has become so serious the suffix “gate” has been attached to make Wardrobegate.

Read more

Not sure about that one. It’s a bit try hard. Some might say the same about the whole subject. Typical media, focussing on trivialities, except in this case there is more to it.

When the story first appeared in the Sunday Times, Downing Street could have held its hands up, amended the register, and drew a line under the matter. Slightly embarrassing, but one of those silly mistakes new governments make. Show over.

After all, as the Prime Minister has been keen to tell the media, Mrs Starmer is an individual in her own right outside of official events, and deserving of privacy.

But then this private individual turned up at London Fashion Week, an event photographers have been known to frequent, wearing another expensive outfit, this one loaned to her by a designer. Wasn’t this reigniting a row that would otherwise have died down? It wasn’t quite “Up yours Delors” as “Put this in your fake Fendi baguette you media carpers, and stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

While I admire Mrs Starmer’s spirit, she is not half making it difficult to negotiate the new, more mature, relationship between them ( the government with its 404 Labour MPs) and us (voters, media, society in general). She is either an ordinary NHS occupational health worker, as she was described in the election campaign, or she can turn up to London Fashion Week in designer duds and bag a front row seat. It is possible to be both but it would hardly make her the average woman.

But then we already know she is not. Unless prime ministers are to attend major occasions on his or her own, they will be accompanied by a spouse. Said spouse requires something to wear. So why not give them a clothing allowance to cover these events? That would seem the grown-up thing to do.

Few countries do so, however, because it is ultimately not worth the hassle. Having a budget that comes from the public purse means accounting for it. The unfortunate spouse would still be judged. She/he spent how much on *that*? Much easier to buy your own clothes, or make some other arrangement. Anything but accept freebies.

Sir Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria Starmer Sir Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria Starmer (Image: James Manning)Sarah Brown managed it just fine. In her 2011 memoir, Behind the Black Door, she said there was no shortage of designers who would offer free clothes, but there were rules to be followed. Moreover, there was “the moral aspect of using your position to grab freebies” to be considered.

If Mrs Brown wanted to keep something she would buy it. Anything else she would “rent” for 10% of the value, then return.

What a sensible way to go about things. Pity Cherie Blair did not follow that system. She hated buying her own outfits for official events, and was usually criticised for her choices. Poor Cherie, I recall one (female) commentator saying, she knows nothing about clothes so goes down to the local “posh” boutique and hands over lots of money in the hope they give her something nice. I cringed for her.

Cherie Blair was so desperate to pass muster she hired a lifestyle adviser. That went well - not. Cherie’s insecurity was a class thing. She was ferociously clever, more so than her other half, and had achieved so much in life, yet she had grown up on Merseyside, her mother a single parent. Money was tight. Like many a child from a working-class home she had to learn the ways of the middle class just to fit in.

The Prime Minister seems cut from the same cloth. That might explain his willingness to take the style advice of others, and the “free” suits and glasses they recommend. He is not the first politician to submit themselves to a makeover. Unlike Margaret Thatcher he has not taken it as far as voice coaching.

He is fond of a freebie, though, judging by his entry in the register. Football figures a lot (two tickets to Chelsea v Arsenal plus hospitality to the value of £2,400). For sheer oceangoing irony my favourite has to be the four tickets plus dinner to see Nye, a play about someone who truly did grow up in shocking poverty. Value of gift: £358.

The point here is that the Starmers, being a wealthy couple by anyone’s standards, can afford to pay for their own clothes and whatever else they want. This should never have become an issue. The fact it has points to something more serious.

There is the obvious hypocrisy of taking free stuff at a time when your government is axing the winter fuel payments of millions of pensioners, with more cuts to come. The lectures about making sacrifices - which you will be hearing more of at next week’s Labour conference - would sit better coming from someone who bought his own tickets to the football. Maybe it is the intransigence that sticks in the craw most of all. The Prime Minister’s inability to stop, take stock, and change when he is in the wrong. If he cannot do this when dealing with relative trivialities, it does not bode well for those times when weightier matters are in the balance.