Analysis Exclusive

Excl: “No excuse” – MPs call for full disclosure as Starmer’s donor list fails to materialise

Leadership candidate said details of donors ‘should’ be available by Monday, but so far no new information

Keir Starmer telling ITV’s Peston that donor info ‘should’ be out by today

Two leading Labour MPs have called on leadership candidate Keir Starmer to come clean with details of his campaign donors, after an updated parliamentary report Starmer said ‘should’ list them failed to materialise.

Starmer told ITV’s Robert Peston last week that an updated list of donors to his leadership campaign ‘should’ be available by today. It was the second time he had failed to respond directly to a request to reveal them:

Starmer is under no obligation to wait for Parliament to report his donors – rivals Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy have already published lists of their donors giving over £1,500 and critics have said Starmer’s delay means that more people will be voting for him in ignorance of who is supporting him.

The register of interests as of 17.15hrs today

The non-appearance of the parliamentary register has prompted two leading MPs to call for full disclosure.

Front-bencher Jon Trickett told the SKWAWKBOX:

It’s time that we put an end to secrecy in political donations. People want to know what lies behind who they are being asked to vote for. This applies to both general elections and inner party elections.

I think we need real time declarations of donations. The moment you take a private sum as a candidate, it ought to be declared.  Maybe everything over a few hundred pounds. There’s really no excuse for delays.

Party chair Ian Lavery added:

I’ve been very clear and my opinion hasn’t in any way changed. Transparency within our party is of the utmost importance. MPs standing for leadership positions should see it as an obligation and not an impediment to publish a timely and clear detailed list of ALL donations from ALL sources let’s get on with this.

Keir Starmer’s campaign was asked to comment on whether their candidate would now publish details of his donors. No response had been received by the time of publication and no updates appear to have been published on his campaign website or Twitter feed.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. We can’t go much farther until KS does as the others have already done, and publishes his funding sources. Otherwise it isn’t a fair contest.

    1. and when he , if , he does disclose that list would you really believe what’s on it in the light of his ducking / diving and shifty behaviour …?

      1. rob – As I understand it this traunch of Starmer’s donors has been with the parliamentary authorities for several days now who are going through a scrutiny process. Although the publication date was expected to be today the official publication of these details is entirely outside the control of KS and his team so it is very much a case of when rather than if.
        As for your doubts about the honesty of KS’s submissions to the parliamentary authorities I doubt that this is an issue because it would be a criminal offence.

      2. steveH , ohhh pleaseeeee , you must think I was born under a gooseberry bush , really you think that anyone like KS didn’t think or know that his sponsor money would go thro checking , even a rank amateur would consider how to deal with the donor issue in advance, have all the info to hand and ready for a timely release , and if Stamer hasn’t then that shows a concerning lack of judgement on his behalf .
        So how come RLB did so much better than Starmer , she will be subject to the same processes ?

        You need to take not just this incident with his performance and character but his time as DPP and some of his appalling decisions , See Julian Assange case for example . His actions in joining with the 2016 Coup against Corbyn , his statement to turn Labour into a rejoin the EU party shows a utter lack of consideration to our Northern heartlands we lost ..
        I understand you prefer Sir Kier Starmer as his stance over the EU aligns with yours , but that will ensure the permanent loss of those Heartlands , I could go on but that would be a waste of time .. I hope that he is not elected for the sake of our Party and the future of the Socialist Left in it

      3. SteveH, the parliamentary ‘authorities’ simply audit the receipt of donations and verify they are from British citizens or political entities (charities, trade unions, think tanks etc.) that are acknowledged as legal and permitted according to several (mainly thatcher-period) pieces of legislation. The four-part processes takes a maximum of two working days to complete.

        Therefore, all donations submitted by Sir K before last Thursday has already been reconciled and approved by Parliament. NOT disclosing the donations that have been received before last Thursday is obviously a decision Sir K is making – and I distrust him for not admitting it.

        THE DELAY is obviously STARMER-GENERATED – unless a very serous reach of the donations tulles have occurred (in which case the story will change).

        The man is obviously deciding NOT to be transparent, open and honest.

        All we want to do is ‘follow the money’. Why is he making it impossible or difficult?

      4. qwertboi 02/03/2020 at 9:06 pm
        Well you’ll be able to ‘follow the money’ to your hearts content when the register is published. At least you’ll actually know if there is anything to get outraged about rather than indulging in idle speculation.

        I don’t recall there being all this fuss when the first traunch of donors were released earlier this year by the normal process of publication in the register. So what’s changed apart from RLB getting a bit desperate because of her lousy polling and then releasing her list of donors prior to the normal procedures in the hope that she will gain some political advantage from it. Unfortunately you are being played.

        As for your insinuations that Starmer has somehow influenced a delay in the publication of the register, are you serious or is this just more malicious speculation on your part.

  2. The Trilateral member, Sir Keir Starmer, refuses to reveal the source of his funds, what has he got to hide?, how much has he received ?who has he received them from ? and under what conditions. If he can’t answer these, and other questions, why should Labour members trust him, if they are so inclined, to vote for him in the leadership contest.

    1. I doubt that I was the only Labour member to receive a large brochure type poster from SirK a few weekends ago. If he sent it to most of the 600 – 700,000 members, then I straight away I know he if heavily financed and wonder by whom and distrust his ability to lead the party I want Labour to be.

      1. That the poster with obey, etc underneath?

        Very 1984

        Has anyone noticed if Starmer has started standing funny or pointing with his thumbs?

        If it quacks like a Tory…

  3. Well , well, well and this guy wants to be our next Party Leader , not looking good from a competence angle , not to mention the STINK of cover up whitewash. I for one don’t care what he discloses now , there will always be a deep concern over his transparency /honesty . Just not trustworthy !
    At least RLB has been honest and straight up with her disclosure and yes yes yes I know all about her BOD capitulation , along with all the others no different ,,, but that pales by comparison to shifty potential dishonest looking action by Sir Kier Starmer , this imo is not the person to lead the Party other than backwards to oblivion.

    1. rob – Now that Keir Starmer’s donor list has been published by the parliamentary authorities have you found anything worth getting exited about or were you getting all hot and bothered about nowt.

  4. *Of course* we don’t need further disclosure by RLB.

    We *know* she’s in hoc to various Union bosses of the old style, Lansman – and the Israel Lobby. 🙂

    … but annointed by Uncle Len.

    So – that’s alright, then!

    1. Yes RH I know your objections to her and the reasoning , and Starmer is no different he is in the pocket imo of the same Lobby , just that you don’t know it yet .
      BTW those old Union bosses , do remember the Labour Party was bought into existence by Unions and it’s membership to represent those same workers in those same Unions and I prefer that to the secretive unaccountable Corporate / rich individuals whose dark money funding things is so poisonous to our party .

      1. Its a shite show choice all round but there we have it hobson choice 😉

      2. I don’t disagree with you in many ways, rob.

        But RLB just has the added disadvantage (apart from being aligned with Lansman) that she can’t cut the mustard. Which, come to think of it, is (thinking generously) why she’s aligned with Lansman.

        I can’t enthuse about Starmer at all, but a lot of the over-the-top demonisation – equating him with Blair – is the usual Toytown isolationist self-indulgent bullshit.

        Basically, RLB plays to the irrelevant, loser mentality that plagues the putative ‘left’. I guess a lot of the Party is sick of it, and that’s why RLB is probably not going to glean the necessary votes. She’s not a she-devil – just not up to it, and plagued by fundamental windy misjudgment that will be easy meat for the Tories.

      3. RH 02/03/2020 at 9:31 pm ·

        ”I can’t enthuse about Starmer at all”

        (For fear I’ll grass meself up.)


        ” but a lot of the over-the-top demonisation – equating him with Blair – is the usual Toytown isolationist self-indulgent bullshit.”

        Oh, so we should equate Starmer to Corbyn, is that it?

        ”Self indulgent bullshit” he calls it. From the self-indulgent bullshitter what actually had the brass neck to spout THIS bullshit….

        RH 10/02/2020 at 7:10 pm · ·

        ”Now then, Toff. What was your contribution to the magnificent December victory of Labour? In this consituency, a Labour MP was elected, instead of a festival of self-indulgence about purity and unreality being staged.”

    2. Of course it’s alright. Union money and member money is CLEAN money. The cleanest in British politics.

      Dirty Money is what we are worried about with SirK

    3. Starmers meteoric rise to challenge for the leadership of the Labour party is sinister and he is a clear and present danger to the democratic socialist Labour party.We know hes dangerous and how can he be allowed to destroy the Labour party by deceit and manipulation.NEC need to start asking questions about who? What and why?..If there ever was a time for intervention by the Labour party then its now.

      1. Joseph – Surely the ultimate arbiter on our choice of leader is the membership and as we all have the opportunity to make our opinions known via the ballot box, where’s the problem.

    4. You really are getting desperate, Toffer with this frothing self-abuse that invloves stalking and failing to comprehend factual old posts, as well as new ones.


  5. By not declaring his source of funding Starmer is breaching the Integrity & Accountability principles of
    The Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the “Nolan principles”

    Elected representatives
    “must declare and resolve any interests and relationships”.
    “must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.”

    Local Councillors get prosecuted for this sort of thing!

    ( He has already breached the “Honesty” principle where he claimed to have ‘ defended the “McLibel Two” ‘ on his website.

    He didn’t – He acted as a “sort of free back up whenever possible.” )

    1. iamcrawford – I’m sorry but you are talking nonsense.

      Candidates have a legal responsibility to declare their donations to the parliamentary authorities and Keir did this a week ago. The submissions then go through a scrutiny process and are then published by the relevant authority.

      The only reason anyone is jumping up and down about this is that following her less than stellar polling RLB thought it would be a wease to put her fellow candidates on the backfoot and up her profile by publishing her donors before they were officially released.

      Surely anyone who is in the least bit concerned about this can simply delay voting for a couple of days. Personally I can’t understand why anyone votes before the last few days, a lot can happen in the next few weeks.

      1. At least RLB performance over the disclosure of funding has been STELLAR compared to Sir Kier Starmers , she was honest , straight forward , open and on time .

        It is no use trying to hide behind procedure , well known and established at that , as some excuse for his non disclosure .

        A lot can happen in the next few weeks but then again one looks at the historic record of the persons concerned to make a judgement on their character and fitness for office , like Stamers voting record for voting against the bill to regulate Fracking , his underhand involvement in the 2016 coup , go and have alisten to Richard Burgon on his view on what happened , its here on Skwawky , and Starmer was part of it .

      2. I am seeing a lot of this sort of special pleading from Starmer fans. He’s so shiny and “electable”
        ( with the sexist and ageist “Gravitas” attribute sometime invoked as well ) that all of his very real flaws become invisible.
        The intent of the Nolan principles is that interests are declared “before” any activity which might benefit them.
        e.g. Standing for election.
        Though probably not legally required to do so he should have
        made his backers and funding public before voting started like the other two candidates did.
        This shows a distinct lack of integrity.

        I note you didn’t comment about the untrue statement on his website. Is that acceptable as well?

  6. If he doesn’t reveal by the end of today he should be forced to withdraw and all his votes voided.

  7. Sir Keir looks terrible when he lies. Poor fellow should release himself from such tortures – and exit the race!

  8. I’m already on record arguing for donations to be disclosed in real time as a minimum requirement and apparently Jon Trickett thinks the same.
    I’d be surprised to learn there was any way for a candidate to conceal donations from questionable sources after the fact – but with Labour’s recent performance, who knows?
    On his best days Starmer seems evasive to me and I’m no fan at all.
    Nevertheless as far as I’ve read to date, he hasn’t broken any rules on donations. Unless he has, or it turns out he’s accepted money from undesirables, I’m going to avoid libelling an ex DPP.

  9. Lack of Openness & Transparency……..makes ‘Sir Keir’ the ideal candidate to be leader of the Labour Party.

  10. David dont let that worry you!DPP or not hes a plant bought and paid for .Don’t forget I know his ex lawyer pals in Reigate,where he went to the local snooty private grammer school Even for Surrey the fees would make your eyes water.Even some of our gentrified Tory(and Labour)councillors couldnt afford the fees.Yes education and a title cost time and money in the rarified atmosphere of the big Bucks and short snouts.Arise Sir Keir Starmer last leader of the democratic socialist Labour party.

  11. Every day he delays means a few hundred / thousand more votes in his pocket; why wouldn’t he delay?
    There’s no incentive for him to be honest, none at all.

  12. So despite all the hand ringing and endless speculation the only thing of note about Keir Starmer’s donations is that there is nothing to note

      1. Already have.

        If you aren’t capable of hitting a few keys etc and then reading, that’s not my problem and I’m not here to help you either.

        I’m sure a big boy like yourself can manage

      2. NVLA – Are you having a laugh. Is that really the best you could come up with, shock horror a company that has organised Labour Party Conferences has donated to Keir Starmer’s leadership campaign.

      3. I’m not going to explain it for you. You’re a big boy.

        But I will mention that Walter Wolfgang’s plight takes new perspective after reading your post.

        Oh yeah, who is us? Just so I know who I’m talking with

      4. NVLA – Don’t be a coward. If you’ve got something to say then say it. I find that people who are being obtuse are generally just trying to cover for the fact they don’t have a case.

    1. I’m neither shy or coy. I’ve said plenty.

      I’ve mentioned Starmers membership of the Trilateral Commission. That’s the invite only club which has people like Henry Kissinger and Jeff Epstein amongst them.

      I then post evidence highlighting Starmers banking family supporters.

      What can you conclude from this? C’mon, you can do this!

      I promise I’ll clap if you get it right, and I won’t mock if you don’t.

Leave a Reply