Tory sleaze allegations rise as leaked texts prompt calls for probe into Starmer leadership funding

London — Tory MPs urged a full investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner into whether Sir Keir Starmer misled Parliament by failing to declare help from Labour Together during his 2020 leadership campaign, after WhatsApp messages suggested a secret slush fund was used to propel him to the Labour leadership and concealed from Parliament. The messages appear to contradict Labour's denial last week that embattled Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney used the Labour Together think tank to back Starmer. One message from a Starmer campaign aide to Labour MPs read: “Labour together [sic] are busy finding funders for Keir's campaign,” according to reports that surfaced in the Mail on Sunday.

The leaks prompted the Tories to call for a full inquiry by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner into whether Starmer misled Parliament by failing to declare the help of Labour Together in official records. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: “Starmer is so weak he is ignoring the mounting evidence against his Chief of Staff because he is scared of losing the man who got him into Downing Street.” The row comes as the author of a new book on the Labour leadership claimed Labour Together had at times employed private detectives, highlighting how controversy surrounds the network that backed Starmer’s ascent.

In Liverpool for Labour’s annual conference, Starmer faced a party facing poll headwinds as rival leaders, including Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, were openly positioning themselves as alternatives. The controversy has intensified as reports emerged that Mr McSweeney had previously sought private legal advice over the failure to declare more than £700,000 in donations to Labour Together, with a party lawyer advising him to present the episode as an “admin error.” The Electoral Commission has faced backlash for ruling out a fresh investigation, citing a legal loophole that, critics say, hampers accountability for large donations.

Under parliamentary rules, Starmer was required to declare all support he received — including in-kind donations — but the Register Of Members’ Interests for the campaign period does not mention Labour Together. The leaked messages trace the Tribune group of Labour MPs and peers, who were involved in discussions about Labour Together’s role as a donor network during the leadership contest. The messages show concern among members that Labour Together’s funding was not shared with others, and some questioned why the Tribune group was not approached for support.

A Labour spokesman rejected the Conservative attacks, saying the party’s opponents have “zero answers to the challenges faced by working people” and accusing them of mud-throwing rather than offering solutions. The party noted that Labour Together has denied influencing Starmer’s leadership bid and argued that the government should focus on economic and border challenges facing the country.

The controversy has drawn broader attention to the role of Labour Together, which supporters say served as a fundraising vehicle; critics contend it operated with a lack of transparency. One adherent of the storyline argued that Labour Together was used to advance Starmer’s position while others on the left perceived strategic misalignment within the party. In a column that has intensified the fire, a commentator asserted that the revelations show how a top adviser allegedly used private fundraising channels to shape leadership outcomes, and raised questions about the integrity of the process. The piece argues that the fallout could extend beyond Labour’s internal politics and reverberate through Westminster’s debates about sleaze and donor influence.

The latest disclosures come as Parliament and campaign watchdogs weigh how to balance donor influence with accountability, and as Conservative lawmakers promise to escalate scrutiny if new material is proven credible. Observers cautioned that investigations can be lengthy and politically charged, but stressed that clear disclosures and transparency are essential to maintaining public trust in parliamentary processes.

Images:

As the political row evolves, attention remains on whether senior advisers and party committees complied with disclosure rules and whether any undermined parliamentary recordkeeping occurred. Critics say that without thorough inquiry, questions about accountability in campaign fundraising will persist. Proponents of scrutiny argue that the episode underscores broader concerns about the influence of donor networks on leadership contests and the integrity of the party system.

Looming over the saga are questions about possible reorganizations within Labour's leadership machinery. Some insiders speculate that Morgan McSweeney may move to a different role, though no formal decision has been announced. Regardless of personnel shifts, the central issue remains: should such fundraising arrangements be more fully disclosed, and should Parliament be informed of any external influence that helps determine political leadership? As this episode unfolds, the public awaits a clear, transparent accounting from those involved and from watchdogs tasked with enforcing parliamentary standards.

Image: