Britain will NOT benefit from ousting 'transitory' Keir Starmer over Lord Alli scandal, barrister claims

In December 2021, Starmer used the £18million property to urge the public to "stay home" during the coronavirus pandemic. The apartment was also used to allow the PM's son to study for his GCSE's, and record a tribute message to the late Queen Elizabeth II.

Weighing in on the Labour scandal, former MP Harriet Harman claimed that Starmer should "find a way of paying for tickets himself" and suggested he should "watch football on TV" instead to allow the backlash to die down.

Discussing the developing allegations on GB News, barrister Steven Barrett claimed that Starmer should not lose his position as Prime Minister, instead calling for "more consistency" in Parliamentary rules.

Barrett explained: "If this does develop into a major scandal, and it's looking that way, then really the benefit to the country is not scalping a PM. It will be working towards a system of consistent rules that we all know.

"We removed an MP in 2019 over £700 of mis-declared expenses. Are we going to remove a Prime Minister over mis-declaring expenses, if those expenses have been mis-declared?"

Suggesting that Starmer isn't "cared about enough" by Britain to be ousted so soon into his tenure, Barrett claimed that the Labour premier is merely "transitory", and the focus should instead be on the rule system.

Barrett told GB News: "If you care about anything, don't really care about Keir - we've had four Prime Ministers in four years. He doesn't really matter.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• Keir Starmer makes feelings clear over ‘sausages’ gaffe during Labour conference speech
• Keir Starmer denies ‘farcical’ claims he pretended Lord Alli’s flat was his home
• ‘Shifty’ Starmer urged to have 'serious discussion' after being 'overshadowed' by Lord Alli scandal

"What matters is our country and the system that we live in. What we need to have is a system of rules that everybody knows in advance, that we then apply consistently. I think that is much more important than what I see as, frankly, a transitory Prime Minister."

When questioned by host Emily Carver on whether Starmer could have broken electoral law by using the penthouse, Barrett claimed that things could be "serious" for the PM if he is found to have breached the rules.

Barrett added: "We invented a system of not very many rules, but rules that we enforced quite strictly, and this is one of them. And if this has been breached, then that is quite a serious thing.

"I think we've got far too many new rules and nobody really knows what they all are. That's what happens when you create too many rules. If you just keep printing new laws and making new offences than actually you'll just accidentally criminalise a whole bunch of people."

Noting Starmer's public persona of being someone who "sticks to the rules", Emily quizzed Barratt on whether this is "really the point from the general public".

Barratt responded: "I expect that that is what the public feel, because this will be the very definition of hoist by your own petard. They have made a massive fuss over this for years and years and years.

"I think it perhaps is time that I say that maybe we've been a bit ridiculous over rules that really don't matter. It's not actually healthy to live in a society that's full of a bunch of rules that nobody knows, and all of a sudden you've committed an offence.

"Let's live in a society where we have clear rules that we all know in advance, and then we can consistently enforce them."