Dear All,

here has been a storm of criticism of Britain’s new government recently because of revelations of the perks and funding the prime minister and several ministers have received. These freebies include PM Keir Starmer accepting corporate hospitality and junkets as well as expensive clothes and accommodation by Lord Alli, a wealthy Labour donor and businessman. The businessman was then given increased access to the PM by being issued a security pass to Downing Street.

It is not a good look – but Labour’s reaction to the public outcry after these revelations shows just how far standards in public service have fallen. Not only were these politicians and their party defensive about these freebies, they seemed unable to appreciate the fact that these freebies represent a potential conflict of interest.

Let us look at the gifts first: Keir Starmer accepted more than £100,000 of gifts. These included ‘work clothing’ worth £16,200 and multiple pairs of glasses to the value of - wait for it - £2,485. Apart from this there is a donation of accommodation worth £20,000. He has also received almost £40,000 in football tickets and hospitality from the Premier League and tickets to Taylor Swift concerts worth £4,000. As if this was not enough, he also accepted high-end clothes to the value of £5,000 for his wife. His deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner accepted £3,550 for clothes; his chancellor, Rachel Reeve received £7,500 for clothes; and his leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, received around £40,000 of donations including hospitality and Taylor Swift tickets.

Now let us look at the response: initially, Labour’s defence was that this was all fine and proper because “everything had been declared.” After a round of it’s-all-been-declared-as-is-proper narrative, Labour politicians moved to a narrative of pathos, saying they needed help, friends were just helping. They had security concerns etc and that they would, in future, accept no further donation for clothes. After that they moved to the rather appalling narrative of “I did it for my kids.”

On a stay in an £18 million penthouse, the PM said he did it for his ‘boy’ who was “under a lot of pressure studying for his GCSE exams.” Lucy Powell had also accepted tickets to a Taylor Swift concert “because her daughter wanted to go.” That they resorted to using their children as justification is, frankly, quite appalling. And also not perhaps an example of great parenting: it seems to suggest that they will lose sight of ethics and principles if their children want or need something. This is not a great way to conduct yourself in public office.

These Labour MPs have carried on with these quite shameless responses. It is astonishing that they refuse to understand the important point that this poses a potential conflict of interest. The PM remained unrepentant; when asked if he would apologise, he declared: “I’m not going to apologise for not doing anything wrong.” Nothing wrong? This is rather difficult to understand. Take the example of the freebies from football’s Premier League: he has declared £12,588 of gifts from the Premier League, numerous hospitality tickets to Arsenal matches costing well over £10,000 in total, plus two Euros finals tickets costing £1,628 and thousands of pounds’ worth of tickets from other Premier League clubs. According to Sky News, officials had warned Starmer that he might be opening himself up to inappropriate lobbying by continuing to accept football tickets particularly in view of the fact that the government is planning to set up an Independent Financial Regulator for men’s football, something that the Premier League is not in favour of.

The PM tried to excuse his accepting hospitality at football matches by claiming that he was a “massive Arsenal fan” but he couldn’t go into the stands for ’security reasons.’ Social media critics reacted to this by posting photos of his predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn watching matches in the stands as well as photos of his predecessor as prime minister, Rishi Sunak watching football from the stands. It is also astonishing that Starmer fails to see that it is rather odd that as the leader of what is traditionally a workers’ party striving for a fairer society, he should think it is okay to wear spectacles that cost over £2,000.

Similarly, the chancellor took £7,500 ‘for clothes’ from a ‘friend,’ Juliet Rosenfeld. Not only is this rather a lot of money for clothes, Rosenfeld is already a controversial figure as she was caught up in the 2006 ‘cash for honours’ scandal (her late husband was one of the donors caught up in this). This also seems to show rather poor judgment from the chancellor but the Labour is justifying the avaricious, insensitive behaviour that one tended to associate with the Conservative party. As one person who wrote in to the BBC said, it is disappointing that Labour “seems no different to the Tories when it comes to freebies.”

The British PM continues to insist that he has “done nothing wrong” and, rather shockingly, says that he will not regulate this in his party because this is a matter of “individual judgment.”

It is easy to understand how many people will see Labour politicians’ acceptance of freebies as morally indefensible since it comes at a time when living standards have fallen and an increasing number of families in the UK are facing severe financial hardship as well as hunger.

Best wishes  

Umber Khairi