The argument for Starmer is that he can't go to a normal seat because of security so he gets invited to corporate boxes, which would cost way more than that season ticket. My take is tough. Most politicians can go to football matches, some high profile ones can't. It's just a cost of the job. Taking bribes to make your life a bit easier is still taking a bribe.
But how far do you extend this?
If high profile politicians aren't allowed to go to football because of the security risk, what about concerts? How about holidays? All of these represent a security risk for a top politician, but surely you cannot expect a PM to simply not be allowed to go on holiday, out for a meal etc etc.
Surely the reasonable 'compromise' here is that the politician will pay for the ticket, meal, holiday etc, etc but that security is provided for them. In some cases this might mean that there would need to be an 'upgrade' to a more secure box. I want the PM (and their family) to be able to live their life as well as being PM - to suggest otherwise seems completely unreasonable.
But then there are different scenarios where a politician attends an event in an official capacity (Reeves mentioned being an official guest of the BBC at the Proms) - surely they shouldn't be expected to cough up for a ticket, which might be an event they'd never want to go to in a million years, but are obliged to in their official capacity. Here is an example - the local Mayor is the honorary president of my choral society - the person in the role changes annually. Attending concerts is considered to be official business of the Mayor and we always provide two tickets - for the Mayor and an accompanying person free of charge. Some Mayors are clearly choral music lovers - for others it is clearly a 'contractual duty' and they'd prefer to be doing something else.
