Leaked Labour Email Says Aide Was Advised to Label £700k in Donations 'Admin Error', Deepening McSweeney Controversy

A bombshell email from Labour’s top lawyer shows Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, was advised to describe about £739,492 in undeclared donations to Labour Together as an “admin error” rather than a breach of electoral law, intensifying scrutiny of the aide and the party’s handling of donations.

The email, dated February 2021, was sent by Labour’s chief lawyer, Gerald Shamash, to McSweeney and lays out a pathway for defending the party’s reporting history while warning that the Electoral Commission had no record of direct contact with McSweeney. It cautions that unless McSweeney could back up his assertion with credible evidence, the party risked antagonising the electoral watchdog. In describing the recommended approach, Shamash wrote that Labour Together should avoid naming McSweeney in communications unless he could substantiate the claim that he had been advised by the Electoral Commission that donations did not have to be declared, and that the alternative could be framed as administrative error. He noted: “My concern is that unless you are able to help with the questions I pose below, we probably should not refer to you at all as the Electoral Commission would undoubtedly take more defensive approach in respect of a member of their staff.” He added: “It may be better if Labour Together cannot deal substantively with questions I pose then perhaps best to simply base our case as to the non-reporting down as admin error.”

The message underscores a tense dynamic in which McSweeney, who helped steer Labour’s fundraising and campaigning apparatus, was pressed to defend a reporting record that later emerged as problematic for Labour Together. The email explicitly warned that there was no formal record of a direct conversation with McSweeney by the Electoral Commission, despite his suggestion that such a discussion had occurred. The tenor of Shamash’s guidance was to avoid tying McSweeney personally to the misreporting and instead attribute the issue to administrative error, unless verifiable evidence could be produced.

The fresh revelations come as Labour faces longstanding questions over donor reporting and governance at Labour Together, a think tank linked to the party. In September 2021, the Electoral Commission concluded that Labour Together had breached the UK’s donations rules by failing to declare more than 20 donations between 2018 and July 2020, resulting in a fine of £14,250. The watchdog had previously told McSweeney in 2017 that donations needed to be declared within a 30-day window, a requirement that Labour Together was found to have breached repeatedly before McSweeney’s departure in 2020.

According to the new disclosures, although McSweeney initially declared certain donations when he became director of Labour Together in 2017, reporting lapsed in early 2018. When his successor, Hannah O’Rourke, took over later, she discovered the £739,000 shortfall and filed late disclosures after McSweeney left the organisation. Labour Together has said it cooperated with the Electoral Commission’s investigation and maintains that the failures were addressed.

The controversy has fed political heat ahead of polling and leadership debates within the party. Conservative MPs seized on the leaked email in calls for a police inquiry into how the matter was handled at the heart of Labour’s leadership team. Kevin Hollinrake, the party chairman, asserted that the public record pointed to evidence of “hiding hundreds of thousands of pounds” that supported Labour’s campaign infrastructure and said the affair was serious enough to warrant a police and Electoral Commission inquiry. He criticized Prime Minister and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer for continuing to express confidence in McSweeney while the party faced an internal rout in the polls.

Downing Street has dodged questions about McSweeney’s tenure at Labour Together, offering only that Starmer holds his chief of staff in high regard. A Government spokesperson reiterated the prime minister’s position that he has “full confidence” in McSweeney, while Labour officials have pressed for transparency and accountability in the donor-reporting process and the investigations that followed.

The most recent disclosures come as Labour’s broader leadership and policy strategy faces scrutiny for past decisions, including McSweeney’s controversial advice around Lord Mandelson’s role as a U.S. ambassador candidate after Mandelson’s ties to controversial figures drew scrutiny. The party’s leadership has argued that donors and fundraisers are subject to the same rules as other political actors and that compliance processes are under continuous review. The episode is part of a wider debate over political finance, transparency, and the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement in Western democracies.

Though the revelations concern a U.K. party, observers in the United States are watching closely for broader implications about donor reporting, the independence of electoral commissions, and the integrity of political leadership teams. In the United States, where political fundraising and donor accountability are similarly scrutinized, the case underscores the importance of consistent, well-documented reporting and the potential political fallout when questions arise about how donations are disclosed and recorded.

As investigations proceed, lawmakers, watchdogs, and the public will be watching to see whether the Electoral Commission’s findings are upheld, whether police involvement follows, and what reforms, if any, Labour accepts to strengthen transparency in campaign finance. The timeline remains under scrutiny: the 2017 declaration expectations, the 2018–2020 reporting gaps, the 2021 commission review and fine, and the ongoing political consequences for Labour’s leadership and strategy. The case also serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between defending political associates and maintaining rigorous compliance with electoral rules, a balance that resonates in both the United Kingdom and the United States as parties navigate fundraising, reporting, and governance in the public eye.