Keir Starmer's Arsenal freebies wouldn't be a big deal — if he hadn't made this mistake

Does Sir Keir Starmer really believe him watching Arsenal is something the taxpayer should ever remotely be on the hook for?

That was the implication after the PM defended his decision to accept corporate hospitality from the club since, apparently, it would cost the taxpayer more in security costs for Sir Keir to use his normal seat.

Sorry mate, but in that case, either pay out of your own not inconsiderable pocket (Nigel Farage pays for his security, by the way) or forego what is essentially a hobby entirely, and watch the games and highlights on tv like so much of the hoi polloi.

Personally I have no objection to the PM and his colleagues accepting freebies from rich mates so long as a) they don't slag off the Tories for doing the same thing, and b) they make it crystal clear there has been no conflict of interest.

These two factors however hang over recent revelations, with Sir Keir also coming under pressure over the fact his chief of staff - Sue Gray - is trousering more cash than the PM.

This throws up the question of whether MPs and PMs are paid too little, and seemingly they are relative to other Western politicians, especially if they feel it is okay to claim the amount of expenses and accept the amount of freebies so many do.

The other issues with paying British politicians so little is firstly incentivising bad faith in government to guarantee cushy jobs once out of office, and secondly discouraging many fine people who cannot afford to take the pay cut.

The same thing has happened at the Criminal Bar for law - in paying so little, all but the wealthiest youngsters can often afford to go into it, discouraging a much deeper pool of talent from entry.

More broadly, does it not feel off for this Labour Party to have so many politicians accepting goodies? It feels doubly off with the austerity measures recently imposed on pensioners and possibly single households in the looming Budget.

Not that Sir Keir and co refusing hospitality tickets and nights in penthouses would cure the national debt but it does still carry the whiff of hypocrisy, especially coming from what is allegedly the party of the working man and woman.

Then there is the entitlement. Again, speaking with BBC Yorkshire political editor James Vincent, Sir Keir said it would cost the taxpayer "a fortune" in security for him to watch Arsenal games from the stands.

He said people would consider it "pretty self-indulgent if I said I’m not going to move from the stands, even if it costs the taxpayer more money".

True, but it is also self-indulgent to even suggest taxpayers would be on the hook for this. Again, either forego the football entirely or pay out of your own pocket.

If, as Baroness Harman suggests, Sir Keir is not a money-driven kind of guy, then why is he even hinting at this? Just like Boris Johnson and wallpaper-gate - which Labour made a fuss over - this just all feels rather sleazy. And it's possible that if wallpaper-gate hadn't been such a focus then, Sir Keir's Arsenal attendance wouldn't be such a hot topic now.

But, again, it also calls into question why the Brits make politics so off-putting for all but the wealthiest. In a country with nosebleed house prices, we again find that in modern-day Britain, your future is increasingly determined by parental wealth.

Perhaps the son-of-a-toolmaker feels it is his right to get a few perks. Look, I don't begrudge him a few freebies, nor do I think this is a sacking or resignation offence. But Sir Keir ought to eat some humble pie at least given the fuss his party kicked up over the Tories doing similar.

Maybe we also take a long hard look at how little we are paying politicians in the first place.