Terry Prone: Well-off people get showered with freebies they could well afford

They have more than enough money to buy their own, and they mightn’t even like the free stuff, but the point is that they get it without having to pay for it.

The very fact that they get freebies indicates how comfortably-off they are. It’s just amazing how few people on the minimum wage run into freebie opportunities in the course of their impoverished daily lives.

In which context, let’s consider Britain’s prime minister, in whom Ireland rests great hopes, which is understandable if only because he’s not Liz Truss or Boris Johnson. 

He’s also a senior counsel and — as far as we can tell — has been in gainful employment for a long time. 

It was during that gainful employment he met Victoria Starmer, then working in occupational health for the National Health Service. 

Keir and Victoria Starmer's meet-cute 

Their first meeting was a vigorous, even contentious encounter on the phone and as it concluded, but before it actually concluded, Keir overheard her talking to a third party about him. “Who the fuck does he think he is?” was her question. Which is a pretty endearing meet-cute story, you have to admit.

Ms Starmer did law and sociology in college, and practiced as a solicitor before joining the NHS. So, like her husband, she’d be well paid, and you’d expect her to dress well as a consequence. And dress well she does. The only problem is that she doesn’t feel the need to pay for the stuff she wears. She gets it for free from Waheed Alli — a multi-millionaire entrepreneur.

Some of the free stuff is class. Pure class. Take the polka dot Ms Starmer dress. Put her in the front row of a gathering and you can’t look at anybody else, the dress is so striking and so beautifully crafted. Or the red shirtwaist, dressed in which, at the last Labour conference, she struck just the right note. Both were either given to her or lent to her, and you could figure that the brands involved were pretty happy with the exposure they got.

But then, her old man must have been pretty happy with the suits he got from Waheed Alli, and the money for new spectacles, plus the loan of a multimillion-pound house from the same man in the run-up to the election. At this point, personal and Irish Examiner safety dictate that we fearlessly state that there’s no evidence that Mr Alli’s generosity means he has done anything wrong. None. And anyway, while he’s been a solid supplier of freebies to the Starmers, he has not been on his own. Arsenal football club has divvied up free private box tickets to the prime minister, and nobody would suggest the Gunners are expecting special legislative treatment from the Labour Party leader.

Nor are we suggesting, in this column, that Mr Starmer has done or intends to do either donor any favours. What we’re suggesting is simpler. Someone leading a party which traditionally has drawn loyalty from the underpaid should not have their hand out like Oliver asking for more. From anybody.

The couple have good jobs paying good money. If the NHS doesn’t pay her enough to buy a dress costing more than a thousand pounds, then she could make a great statement of party alignment with its voters by choosing something from Primark. She’d still have looked great.

Although casting this as a Labour Party issue is to falsify it. No political leader, even whoever heads up the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, should take freebies. Ever. Of any kind.

Reciprocity and indebtedness

While we’re not suggesting any payback from the Starmers for their freebies, it is worth remembering the law of reciprocity. That’s the one that causes American restaurants to put bowls of mints at their reception desks for incoming and departing customers. The one that propagates customer loyalty because of the feeling that the recipient kind of owes the giver in some inchoate way. The one Mohamed Al Fayed knew perfectly. 

The man now credibly accused of multiple rapes of women working for him had 30 apartments in a prestigious building he owned in Park Lane, London. Would he lend them out for free to politicians, businesspeople, show business celebrities and rock stars? Would he what? Would he ensure that they were well fitted-out with the best champagne and other perks? Would he what? Would he ensure that notes were kept of personal predilections and family problems attached to some of his guests? I refer you to the previous responses.

Al-Fayed created a web of indebtedness around the rich and famous that he might never have to act upon, but that he could act upon if he needed to. Won’t you come into my parlour … the key thing is that Al Fayed didn’t give any of these freebies to the impoverished. He gave them to people who were well off, if not filthy rich. 

The category into which Mr and Ms Starmer neatly fit. None of them needed the freebies, but they put out their hands for alms, nonetheless. A senior counsel accepting money he didn’t need in order to buy himself a pair of spectacles does activate the cringe factor quite some. 

No more freebies

Of course, it must be acknowledged that he’s promised he won’t do it again, and that Ms Starmer’s headed to Primark even as we speak. Well, that last assertion may be an overstatement, but the bottom line is that the prime minister and his wife are not going to take any more freebies, which will stifle Mr Alli’s generosity something shocking.

Now here’s where communication comes in. When famous people put their foot in their mouth, it never strikes them that this happenstance just might impede their communications a little bit. They’re still egging to put out a statement or go on radio or television to explain how everybody is taking the wrong meaning from the situation. 

You might think that a highly trained and experienced senior counsel who has been through years of heavy political debate would be the exception but you would be wrong, as Mr Starmer has proven in the last 10 days.

He effectively blamed his 16-year-old son for his father taking the Arsenal tickets and made himself out as somehow virtuous in furthering their relationship using the football club’s gift. And — get this — he also managed to blame the teenager for borrowing the mansion. The mansion was quieter than their own home, so the kid could concentrate on homework.

The offence was tacky enough. The excuses were frankly squalid.