Your support helps us to tell the story
Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.
Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.
Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.
Sir Keir Starmer has launched a fightback against accusations his government is mired in “sleaze, nepotism and avarice” with an announcement that the rules on declaring donations and gifts will be changed.
The prime minister and a succession of cabinet ministers have been pilloried for accepting thousands of pounds in freebies from corporate sponsors and millionaire donors with the scandal hitting the party in the polls.
In a bid to stave off criticism and put the government back on track, Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who runs the Cabinet Office “engine room” of Whitehall, has announced that an exception which meant ministers did not have to declare tickets for events while all other MPs did will be stopped.
Mr McFadden claimed the current rules were a “Tory loophole” to protect Conservative ministers. The move came as:
- Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield quit Labour, accusing Sir Keir of presiding over “sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice” and followed up her letter claiming the prime minister “has a woman problem”.
- Mr McFadden dismissed £16,000 in donations for Sir Keir’s clothes and £32,000 for ministers and their spouses for clothes as “a campaign expense”.
- Labour parliamentarians launched what appears to be a coordinated attack on “the rightwing conspiracy” against Starmer.
- The Tories have opened their conference in Birmingham with senior figures “deeply concerned” they are not providing any meaningful opposition.
- Former prime minister Rishi Sunak went into hiding and only giving a speech in privade to a select group of Tory members.
Mr McFadden said that details of hospitality received by ministers in their ministerial capacity are published by departments, but the information is released quarterly and does not include its value, unlike MPs’ interests which are declared fortnightly and include the cost accrued.
Speaking about the new changes, Mr McFadden told the BBC: “We will make clear going forward in the ministerial code that both ministers and shadow ministers should be under the same declaration rules.”
He added: “This was a Tory loophole, brought in so that you would have an event where the Tory minister, as it was under the last government, there, the Labour shadow opposite number would also be there, and the Tory minister would not have to declare.
“That was the Tory rule, we don’t think that’s fair, so we will close that loophole so ministers and shadow ministers are treated the same going forward.”
Transparency International UK welcomed the Government’s proposal to change the rules on how ministers have to declare hospitality they have received.
Rose Whiffen, senior research officer at the campaign group, said: “We welcome this move to end the two tier system that has meant ministers, those closest to power, are able to provide less information on their hospitality and provide it less frequently than their backbench colleagues.
“Additionally to show his commitment to improving trust, the prime minister should issue his ministerial code with promised changes to strengthen the independent adviser’s role as well as the Nolan principles featuring front and centre in the foreword.”
Sir Keir faced criticism after it emerged that he had accepted more than £100,000 in gifts.
Ms Duffield announced her decision to quit the Labour Party on Saturday in an open letter to the prime minister.
She wrote: “Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp – this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister.”
Ms Duffield, who has had strained relations with the party as a result of her views on trans issues, went on to criticise Sir Keir’s management of Labour, saying he had “never regularly engaged” with backbench MPs and lacked “basic politics and political instincts”.
She added: “The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.”
Her letter said she intended to sit as an Independent MP “guided by my core Labour values”.
But Labour MPs and peers appeared to launch a fightback on social media to defend the embattled prime minister.
Siobhain McDonagh, Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, posted an article by The Independent’s John Rentoul adding: “The hounding of Keir Starmer is exactly what the right-wing media wants | The Independent – 100%. Thank you.”
Former deputy leader Lord Tom Watson, replied: “I agree”.
A number of party figures have also made it clear they are not upset with Ms Duffield’s departure.
Meanwhile, with the Tory conference starting in Birmingham senior figures have confided that they believe the four month leadership contest which is continuing with the final four candidates means they are “providing no meaningful opposition.”
Former prime minister and still leader Rishi Sunak is not even giving a public speech at the conference instead deciding only to address a select group of members on the National Convention.
But one former senior minister has questioned whether Labour’s plans on transparency are meaningful at all.
Former Tory minister Sir Jake Berry dismissed Mr McFadden’s claims and said many of the gifts for clothes, designer glasses, use of luxury apartments, and events like Taylor Swift concerts were not covered by the ministerial exemption.
He told The Independent: “This really is a smokescreen. Almost all of these gifts we would have to declare in our roles as MPs when we were ministers. There was no exemption.
“It is interesting that for things like clothes the donors like Lord Alli could have made a general donation for campaign funds to the party which could then have been spent on clothes or whatever. Instead he chose to make personal donations to individuals because clearly he wanted them to know he was making the donation.”