No 10 rejects suggestion PM’s Taylor Swift tickets were ‘thank you’ for security
Number 10 insisted that operational decisions are ‘ultimately’ taken independently by Scotland Yard.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Downing Street has rejected suggestions that Sir Keir Starmer received Taylor Swift tickets as a “thank you” after she was given a taxpayer-funded police escort while performing in London.
But Number 10 repeatedly refused to say whether the Prime Minister met the singer at a sell-out show he attended for free following Government intervention in security talks about the London leg of her tour.
Questions about the involvement of senior Labour figures in the discussions have intensified after reports suggested she was given a convoy on the way to the stadium despite initial reservations in Scotland Yard.
Politicians including the Prime Minister and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts, which came under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid a row over freebies given to ministers.
The PM announced he would cover the cost of around £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he received since entering office following the donations backlash, as well as committing to changing ministerial hospitality to improve transparency.
Among the declarations he paid back were four tickets to see Swift at Wembley Stadium which were received on August 20 from UMG, the musician’s record label.
Asked on Tuesday whether the Prime Minister had gone on to meet the singer on this date, a Number 10 spokeswoman said: “I don’t have any updates.”
She said it was “entirely legitimate” and “expected” for the Government to “have a dialogue” with police ahead of major events taking place in the capital.
Downing Street also did not deny that figures within No 10 had spoken directly with Swift’s team after The Sun reported that the singer’s mother, Andrea Swift, had negotiated security arrangements with ex-chief of staff Sue Gray.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was confident that perceptions of a conflict of interest had been avoided, his official spokesman said: “Operational decisions are for the Met (Metropolitan Police). That’s the bottom line.”
Downing Street cited the terror threat faced by Swift in Vienna, which had forced her to cancel gigs on the Austria leg of her Eras tour, as one of the reasons Government was involved in security talks round her London shows.
Labour figures including Sir Keir, Sadiq Khan and Ms Cooper accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts.
It emerged last week that both the London Mayor and the Home Secretary were involved in the security talks, after which Swift was granted a blue-light escort – a type of protection usually reserved for royalty and politicians.
Asked whether Number 10 could rule out Sir Keir having been given the tickets as a “thank you” after discussions between Government and the force were followed by Swift getting security while in London, the spokesman said: “I completely reject that characterisation because it’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to the security of these major events.”
A Met Police spokesperson said: “The Met is operationally independent.
“Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case.
“It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”