One of the oddities of British political history is the way that the systematic buying of influence slid from view during the social democratic era, being replaced by a narrative of personal corruption, often tied to sexual unorthodoxy or marginal social groups.
This was quite unlike other countries, where political corruption was pervasive because it was systemic: it was what "normal" people did when exposed to power. In other words, the US, France & Italy (to pick examples) saw it as the product of the system, not of the individual.
Before WW2, there were plenty of systemic British scandals, such as Lloyd George's peerages, but these were mostly presented as "bad form" by people who should know better or the machinations of cunning outsiders (often Jews &/or arrivistes).
After the war, it became infra dig (or paranoid) to suggest that money held more sway than the "common voter" or that it could organise to maintain power. Most scandals focused on personal enrichment, rather than class influence, & centred on "others" (Kagan, Poulson etc).
During the neoliberal era, by contrast, it was accepted that all politicians would be influenced by money, but in an essentially chaste way: eulogising wealth-creators & the "value for money" of outsourcing but otherwise being free of personal taint.
The sleaze years of the late-80s & early-90s didn't undermine this because they were quite nostalgic in their focus on personal morality (particularly sexual peccadilloes) - also the case with Maxwell. The expenses scandal of 2009 was similarly "petty". The systemic was ignored.
The result is a political culture, encompassing all the main parties, in which the systematic buying of influence is now regarded as not just normal & blameless but a public good. So long as you are not seen to personally benefit, your systemic corruption may even be applauded.
Thus Boris Johnson's first honours list has been widely derided for the now routine appearance of personal corruption - rewards to donors, buying off critics etc - while Labour's systemic corruption (the McNicol regime) is being actively defended by the liberal media.
That rich "donors" have let it be known that they will provide Labour with funds because they are well pleased with Starmer should be a moment of collective disgust, but our sensibilities have so blunted that we believe nothing short of personal cupidity is worthy of censure.
