In a revelation that threatens to shake the foundations of the Labour Party, internal documents have surfaced indicating that Keir Starmer’s closest advisers were aware of a contentious investigation aimed at journalists critical of the Labour Together thinktank. This inquiry, deemed “indefensible” by critics, raises serious questions about the party’s commitment to transparency and press freedom.
Unveiling the Investigation
The documents, recently made public through a subject access request, reveal that Morgan McSweeney, who previously served as the prime minister’s chief of staff, was among those briefed on the probe. Commissioned by Josh Simons, the then-director of Labour Together, the investigation was initiated in 2023 to scrutinise the sources behind damaging articles that highlighted £740,000 in undeclared donations to the thinktank during McSweeney’s tenure. Notably, Labour Together faced a £14,250 fine in September 2021 for its financial mismanagement.
In a significant turn of events, the investigation was executed by Apco Worldwide, a US-based public relations firm, raising concerns over the influence of foreign interests in domestic politics. Internal correspondence from Simons, dated 14 January 2024, underscores the seriousness of the situation. He requested a meeting with McSweeney and Paul Ovenden, Starmer’s director of political strategy, to discuss the findings of Apco’s senior director, Tom Harper.
Targeting Journalists: A Troubling Trend
The Apco investigation specifically targeted journalists, including Gabriel Pogrund and Harry Yorke from the Sunday Times, as well as Henry Dyer from the Guardian and John McEvoy from Declassified UK. The report’s insinuations were alarming; it suggested that Pogrund’s reporting could potentially destabilise the UK and align with Russian foreign policy aims. Such allegations not only threaten the integrity of the journalists involved but cast a shadow over the Labour Party’s respect for a free press.
After the inquiry’s details emerged, Simons, who later became a minister, expressed his shock over the extent of Apco’s findings and their deviation from the original brief. His subsequent resignation illustrates the political fallout from this scandal, yet it also raises questions about Starmer’s knowledge of the ongoing investigation. Official statements deny any awareness on his part, yet the implications of such an internal operation cannot be ignored.
Press Freedom Under Siege
Paul Holden, a journalist whose work was central to the Sunday Times investigation, has called for a full parliamentary inquiry into Labour Together. He described the invasive probe as a coordinated effort by Labour Together, Apco, and the upper echelons of the Labour Party to undermine independent journalism. Holden’s assertion that the findings of this investigation represented an attack on the public’s right to know cannot be dismissed lightly.
Labour’s response has been to profess support for press freedom. However, the actions taken under their banner suggest otherwise. Alison Phillips, the chief executive of Labour Together, recently rebranded as ThinkLabour, acknowledged the indefensible nature of the Apco investigation, indicating a shift in the organisation’s ethical compass.
The internal divisions within Labour are further underscored by the resignations of McSweeney and Ovenden, albeit for unrelated issues. Nonetheless, their involvement in this scandal adds another layer of complexity to the party’s already embattled image.
Why it Matters
This unfolding saga is not merely an internal Labour issue; it poses a direct challenge to the principles of accountability and transparency that underpin democratic governance. The implications extend far beyond the party, signalling a potential erosion of press freedoms in the UK. As the public increasingly demands transparency in political dealings, the Labour Party must confront the consequences of its actions and restore faith in its commitment to an independent press. The findings of this investigation not only threaten the reputations of those involved but also raise fundamental questions about the future of journalism and democracy in Britain.
