Keir Starmer has defended borrowing an £18m penthouse flat from the Labour donor Waheed Alli during the election, saying he took the offer so that his son would have a place to study for his GCSEs without having to walk past journalists and protesters outside their family home.
The prime minister brought up the “human” reason for having moved his family out of his Kentish Town house, saying no cash changed hands as a result of the move.
He was pressed while attending the UN general assembly in New York on public opposition to him taking more than £100,000 of freebies in the form of tickets, clothes and accommodation.
Asked by Sky News whether his reputation had been undermined, Starmer talked about why he moved to the Covent Garden flat belonging to Lord Alli, a media businessman and Labour peer.
Senators are elected, aren’t they? Peers are given honours by the monarch, usually after a recommendation from the Prime Minister, and can sit in the House of Lords, unelected, and make decisions about legislation. A Labour peer is just a peer recommended to the monarch by a Labour PM. So Lord Alli is a businessman who received favours from the Labour Party, giving him unelected political influence, and he’s giving favours to a Labour PM in return.
Seems quite different to me.
Which UK Law considers perfectly normal, legal, and good.
So, there’s no problem, see?
I love how those in positions to take bribes have managed to make blatant corruption totally legal and cool.
That’s true, but I don’t know of a comparable position in the US. Perhaps a “cabinet” member, like the Secretary of State?
As to your point about favour-trading, that’s absolutely accurate, but I consider that more of an indictment of peerage in general. Within the bounds of the current system, for all its flaws, they are effectively colleagues, no?
There isn’t a comparable position in the USA. But corruption has the same whiff everywhere. That said, this example seems relatively minor and harmless.
I might argue that the SCOTUS is at least approaching comparable. But then imagine Clarence Thomas letting Baron Trump borrow the RV he got from his billionaire sugar daddy Anthony Welters, executive VP at UnitedHealthCare.
And then imagine Trump appointing Welters to an advisory committee at HHS. That’s in the ballpark of what we’re dealing with.
The supreme court is an altogether different branch of government so that comparison isn’t accurate at all, especially since commonwealth countries also have supreme courts.
The British Parliamentary Ministerial system combines the Legislative and Executive branches. So even talking about “branches of government” goes out the window.
They don’t have co-equal branches and their courts aren’t organized in the US Circuit model.
But even that’s beside the point. What’s at issue is a lifetime appointee (who gained the position through bribery) continuing to bribe an elected official to be favorable towards his political position. It’s pure patronage.
What leads you to believe this is accurate?