Starmer faces sleaze inquiry over relationship with top aide

Keir Starmer could face a sleaze inquiry over claims he breached the MPs' code of conduct by failing to declare past support from the Labour Together think-tank, according to Conservative sources. Westminster’s standards commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, is reviewing the matter after a bundle of evidence was sent to him by Conservative chairman Kevin Hollinrake, who argues there is a case to answer.

Central to the dispute is Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, who also ran the Labour leader's leadership campaign while serving as Labour Together's director. He is reported to have given Starmer's team access to extensive polling data funded by donations to Labour Together that were not disclosed. Official records show Starmer did not declare any support from Labour Together in the Commons register, despite rules requiring MPs to register support worth more than £1,500.

Labour Together has boasted about the instrumental role it played in helping Sir Keir win Labour's leadership contest in 2020. McSweeney's leadership campaign ran while he remained the think-tank's director, tying the two roles together in a manner that has come under scrutiny as part of the alleged transparency gaps.

The rules governing the MPs' register require members to declare any support or affiliation from outside bodies that total more than £1,500 in value. The failure to declare such support, if proven, can trigger a standards inquiry and potential sanctions. Greenberg's assessment will focus on whether there is a case to answer under the code of conduct and, if appropriate, how the matter should proceed within the standards framework.

Political observers note that the proceedings touch on the broader question of how associations with think-tanks and donor-funded research are disclosed by MPs and their staff. While the standards process operates separately from party politics, its outcomes can have political repercussions for Starmer and Labour as the party navigates expectations about transparency and accountability. The outcome of Greenberg's review remains pending, with no timetable publicly announced for a ruling or further action.