Your support helps us to tell the story
Support NowOur 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.
Louise Thomas
Editor
Sir Keir Starmer has launched a fightback against accusations that 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 criticised for accepting thousands of pounds’ worth of freebies from corporate sponsors and millionaire donors, with the scandal hitting the party in the polls.
In a bid to put the government back on track, Pat McFadden, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who runs the Cabinet Office – the “engine room” of Whitehall – announced that rules for ministers would be tightened up.
He claimed that the current rules were a “Tory loophole” designed to protect previous 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 by claiming that 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”
- Loyalist Labour parliamentarians launched what appeared to be a coordinated attack on “the right-wing conspiracy” against Sir Keir
- The Tories opened their conference in Birmingham, as senior figures within the party expressed “deep concern” that the party is not providing meaningful opposition
- A row broke out between Tory leadership hopefuls over comments Kemi Badenoch made regarding “excessive” maternity pay
- Former PM Rishi Sunak went into hiding and only gave a speech in private to a select group of Tory members
Mr McFadden said that under current guidance, details of hospitality received by ministers in their ministerial capacity are published by departments, but they are only released quarterly and do not include the value – unlike MPs’ interests, which are declared fortnightly and include the estimated cost.
Speaking about the new changes, Mr McFadden said: “We will make clear going forward in the ministerial code that both ministers and shadow ministers should be under the same declaration rules.
“This was a Tory loophole, brought in so that you would have an event where the Tory minister ... was 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.
Rose Whiffen, speaking on behalf of 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.”
Sir Keir has faced criticism after it emerged that he personally had accepted more than £100,000 in gifts.
Ms Duffield announced her decision to quit the Labour Party at the weekend, 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, whose relations with Labour have been strained as a result of her views on transgender issues, went on to criticise Sir Keir’s management of the party, saying he had “never regularly engaged” with backbench MPs and that he 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 and would be “guided by my core Labour values”.
But Labour MPs and peers launched 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 Tom Watson replied: “I agree.”
A number of party figures have also made it clear that they are not upset about Ms Duffield’s departure, and highlighted the fact that she had abstained on the recent winter fuel vote.
Meanwhile, with the Tory conference starting in Birmingham, senior Conservative figures have confided that they believe the four-month leadership contest, which is continuing with the final four candidates, means the party is “providing no meaningful opposition”.
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak, who is still the leader of the party, is not even giving a public speech at the conference; instead he will address only a select group of members of the National Conservative Convention.
One former senior minister questioned whether Labour’s plans about transparency are at all meaningful.
Former Tory minister Sir Jake Berry dismissed Mr McFadden’s claims, and said that many of the gifts of clothes, designer glasses, the use of luxury apartments, and tickets for events like Taylor Swift concerts are 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.”
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
