Bold headline: The prime minister has requested an ethics review of Minister Josh Simons amid claims that Labour Together—an influential think tank it backed—funded a report probing journalists’ backgrounds. And this is where the controversy thickens.
The PM’s ethics adviser has been tasked with examining Simons after Labour Together paid APCO Worldwide at least £30,000 to “investigate the sourcing, funding and origins” of a Sunday Times article about undeclared donations at the think tank ahead of the 2024 election. Simons has argued that APCO exceeded its brief by including information that wasn’t required.
Sir Keir Starmer had already directed the Cabinet Office to probe Simons, and more than 20 Labour MPs have pressed for a fully independent inquiry, highlighting that Simons serves as a minister in the Cabinet Office. The independent ministerial standards adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, is limited to assessing Simons’ conduct while in office, not his past role with Labour Together before he became an MP.
The BBC has not seen APCO Worldwide’s full report, but sources familiar with its contents, corroborated by the Sunday Times, allege that the report touched on journalist Gabriel Pogrund’s Jewish beliefs and suggested his ideological stance could be viewed as undermining the UK and aligning with Russia’s foreign policy aims. The contract to Simons shows APCO’s mandate to scrutinize “the sourcing, funding and origins” of the Sunday Times reportage, as well as information about journalists Paul Holden and Matt Taibbi, the American reporter.
During an urgent question in Parliament, Cabinet Office Chief Secretary Darren Jones said the ongoing investigation had “established the facts” and had been shared with Starmer, who then handed the matter to the independent adviser on ministerial standards. He emphasised the government’s commitment to press freedom and stated that no journalist should face intimidation for holding power to account.
Simons has insisted that APCO’s inquiry focused on a supposed illegal hack and rejected the notion that the investigation targeted journalists. Critics from the Conservative side, including shadow chancellor Alex Burghart, argued the report contained a baseless claim that Labour Together reporters had relied on Russian hacking, and claimed the document was circulated to key Labour figures and to GCHQ, which reportedly found no case to answer. Burghart condemned what he saw as an attempt to smear journalists who merely reported on Labour Together’s electoral-law breach and questioned the minister’s continued tenure, urging suspension pending the inquiry. Jones countered that Magnus’s remit limits scope to ministers in office, not past roles.
Labour MPs welcomed the ethics inquiry but some urged a broader look at Labour Together’s conduct rather than focusing solely on Simons. John McDonnell insisted that the full truth must emerge, arguing current explanations don’t pass the sniff test. Jones responded that Magnus’s mandate covers ministers, while questions about Labour Together should go to the think tank’s board, prompting McDonnell to accuse the government of a whitewash.
Would you support a broader, independent probe of Labour Together beyond Simons’ actions, or do you think the current ministerial-focused inquiry is sufficient to restore accountability? Share your thoughts and perspectives in the comments.
