In a troubling revelation, it has come to light that senior advisers to Keir Starmer were aware of an “indefensible” investigation targeting journalists who had reported critically on the Labour Together thinktank. Documents released this week detail how Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, and other key aides were briefed on the controversial probe, which has sparked intense scrutiny regarding Starmer’s knowledge and involvement.
Details of the Investigation
The investigation was initiated by Josh Simons, the director of Labour Together at the time, who sought to uncover the sources behind reports detailing £740,000 in undeclared donations to the organisation while McSweeney was at the helm. This financial irregularity led to a fine of £14,250 imposed on the thinktank in September 2021. The probe, which employed Apco Worldwide—a US-based public relations firm—was intended to investigate the motivations of journalists who contributed to negative coverage of the organisation.
Internal communications revealed that Simons had communicated with McSweeney and Paul Ovenden, Starmer’s political strategy director, about the investigation. An email dated 14 January 2024 noted that Apco’s senior director, Tom Harper, would soon be delivering a report regarding Paul Holden, a journalist whose investigation was the basis for critical articles published in the Sunday Times.
Involvement of Prominent Journalists
The final report prepared by Apco identified several journalists, including Gabriel Pogrund and Harry Yorke from the Sunday Times, as significant targets of scrutiny. The findings included alarming assertions about Pogrund’s reporting being potentially harmful to the UK’s national interests, suggesting a connection to Russian foreign policy objectives.
Simons, who later became a minister, expressed shock upon learning of the report’s details, claiming it exceeded the agreed-upon parameters of the investigation. This incident has raised serious ethical questions about the extent to which political figures are willing to go to protect their reputations at the expense of journalistic integrity.
Calls for Accountability
The email correspondence concerning the investigation was uncovered following a subject access request filed by Holden, who has since demanded a comprehensive parliamentary inquiry into the actions of Labour Together. “These documents now show that the deeply invasive investigation into me, my family, colleagues and associates was, in effect, a joint project on the part of Labour Together, Apco and the highest levels of the Labour party,” he stated. “This was an appalling attack on public interest investigative journalism.”
The Labour Party has publicly asserted its commitment to press freedom, with Alison Phillips, the chief executive of Labour Together—now rebranded as ThinkLabour—condemning the actions taken during the investigation as “indefensible.”
Leadership Changes and Future Implications
In the wake of these revelations, both McSweeney and Ovenden have departed from their roles at Downing Street, although their resignations pertain to separate issues. It is reported that McSweeney was aware of the investigation’s initiation and approved of the findings, although the presented materials were heavily redacted.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the ramifications of this investigation may have lasting effects on public trust in the Labour Party, particularly as it prepares for future elections. The fallout from this revelation could influence not only internal party dynamics but also the broader discourse surrounding press freedom in the UK.
Why it Matters
The implications of this investigation extend far beyond the Labour Party, highlighting critical issues related to the safeguarding of journalistic integrity and the role of political entities in potentially undermining it. As public interest journalism faces increasing scrutiny and, at times, hostility, the need for robust protections for journalists becomes ever more pressing. The actions taken by Labour Together raise profound questions about transparency and accountability within political organisations, ultimately impacting democratic values and the public’s right to information.
