Allegations of secret funding and leadership influence trigger new scrutiny of Labour Together and Starmer campaign

A Daily Mail report citing leaked WhatsApp messages from a group of senior Labour MPs and peers with close ties to Morgan McSweeney’s Labour Together lobbying network alleges a secret slush fund was used to install Keir Starmer as Labour leader. The messages, the report says, link Labour Together directly to Starmer’s leadership bid and portray the group as the mechanism through which donations and polling resources were funneled toward that campaign.

The article describes Labour Together as the vehicle that carried Starmer into No. 10 and lays out a timeline in which roughly £750,000 in donations were allegedly concealed over 36 months. It also details dinners at the home of former Labour MP Jenny Chapman, described as part of a strategy session to map funders and pollsters into alignment with Starmer’s bid. The piece characterizes McSweeney’s early aim as secrecy, contending that the plan was to dismantle Jeremy Corbyn’s faction and install a more moderate leadership figure—Starmer—as a favored successor.

According to the report, the revelations come from leaked internal communications and accounts associated with Labour Together that allegedly show a deliberate effort to obscure the source and use of funds. The story asserts that, once Corbyn stepped down, McSweeney and allied supporters allegedly took charge of the campaign and aggressively marginalized left-wing rivals in the party. It also asserts that some associates boasted about the strategy and the stealthy nature of the fundraising and campaigning activities.

The article notes that questions persist about why staff who worked on the Starmer bid were seconded to the campaign rather than publicly employed, and how salaries were allocated in a way intended to keep funding costs down. It points to published Labour Together accounts that purportedly show a turnover of about £750,000 in three years but claim no clear record of the alleged slush fund. The report also cites a line attributed to Labour Together’s long-time staff and others: that the failure to declare the slush fund was “entirely unintentional,” a claim the piece presents as inconsistent with leaked emails.

Observers and officials have long debated the boundaries between party campaign activity and formal governance, particularly around advisory roles, secondments, and the use of external organisations deemed to be affiliated with a leadership campaign. The Daily Mail piece frames the disclosures as evidence of a broader pattern of fundraising and influence that could raise questions with the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, should inquiries be undertaken.

In the wake of the report, there is speculation within Westminster about Morgan McSweeney’s future role. Some have suggested he may shift to a less high-profile position within Labour, such as a leadership‑level party post, while others warn that the allegations could escalate scrutiny of party financing and campaign practices more broadly. Downing Street and Labour representatives have not publicly contradicted the core claims outlined in the leaked messages, but the piece emphasizes that the government and party apparatus are under renewed pressure to address questions about process, transparency, and accountability.

The allegations described in the article echo ongoing debates about political fundraising and the influence of affiliated groups on party leadership contests. They also underscore the perceived vulnerability of internal party funding structures to external scrutiny, especially as regulators and watchdogs monitor compliance with donation disclosures, staffing arrangements, and the proper delineation between campaign activity and party governance. As scrutiny intensifies, lawmakers, auditors, and observers alike will be watching for formal responses, clarifications from Labour about governance practices, and any regulatory reviews that may follow.

The episode highlights a larger pattern in which leadership contests and party fundraising intersect with questions of transparency and accountability in UK politics. If confirmed, the allegations could have implications for how political fundraising is regulated, how donor activity is disclosed, and how leadership campaigns engage with affiliated organisations that operate at a distance from official party structures. As new information emerges, officials and party members will need to weigh the balance between strategic campaigning and the legal and ethical standards that govern political finance in the United Kingdom.