All men are born equal... but some are more equal than others.

I completely get the point, but you could also say "why does your head office need to be in London?" (assuming it is) - office space would be much cheaper in Swindon, for instance.

I just see it as a matter for the union, and it's not even a bad investment (since they'll get the money back, plus property inflation, at a later date).

Interesting to hear the opinions of left minded posters "who don't have a problem" with this arrangement.

The same posters who voiced condemnation of Cameron's offshore investments, which were perfectly legal but morally were a bit underhand and against public opinion as satisfactory tax avoidance instruments forcing him to get rid.

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of previous Labour voters now turned off by Corbyn's leadership which has been propped up by Union support would view this arrangement with suspicion as I do and won't be in a hurry to vote Labour anytime soon.

I hope Napoleon McCluskey enjoys his new flat that the hard earned wages of Unite Union members has bought him - even if it is on a temporary basis.

Edited by Hoof Hearted (09 Sep 2016 10.22am)

And Len indemnifying Unite against any losses in the event of the London market cooling off.

I can understand the union buying a flat for the leader of the union (whoever that is) for when they are in London on business. But this arrangement is something completely different.

Sort of, but not really (luckily I'm not sitting on the fence).

The union, unless I'm mis-reading the article (entirely possible), retains ownership of a portion of the property, and the property will be sold when McCluskey leaves office, so effectively it's a pretty cost-efficient way of putting your leader up (if that's what you choose to do). They pay 400K up front, in x years, they get (probably) 500K back, and in the meantime the leader has accommodation in London.

I do wonder if it's a taxable benefit for McCluskey though (effectively subsidised housing)