Point is, PM could be beholden to donors

I FEEL Edward Kynaston’s recent letter (‘Boris not the first to lavishly redecorate’) misses the point.

The examples he quotes of Labour politicians are all examples where refurbishment of their ‘grace and favour’ residences are met from the public purse.

The question of extravagance is a separate issue.

Our prime ministers are provided with a flat ‘above the shop’ which is maintained from the public purse. However, if the decor or furnishings are not to the new incumbent’s liking (or, let’s be frank, not to his girlfriend’s liking) then it is for the new prime minister to refurbish to his taste at his expense.

There is an argument for saying that shouldn’t be the case but at present “dems de rules”.

Allowing the Prime Minister to have others pay for it opens him up to allegations that he is beholden to others and will improperly use his office to the benefit of his benefactors.

Boris is very cavalier about rules; I’m told that for some it’s part of his appeal.

However, we cannot simply rely on the goodwill of politicians, rules are in place for a reason.

For example, there was a need to find a way to fast-track procurement of PPE at the start of the pandemic but the answer was not to abandon all rules and dole out massive contracts to businessmen on the basis that they knew a government minister, with resultant awful but predictable waste.

I do not doubt that the PM was genuine in his desire to help Dyson avoid tax penalties for his staff seconded to help provide ventilators, but what if you’re one of the many businesses who are also providing much-needed medical equipment but don’t have the PM’s phone number to get advantageous tax treatments ?

The PM can’t play favourites because favouritism leads to cronyism, which leads to sleaze and corruption.

Our PM thinks rules don’t have to apply to him, but there are very strong ethical reasons why our PM above all people should follow the rules.

Paul Thomas Highbridge, Somerset