Without greater transparency, money risks influencing our politics in the dark, it’s time to check who is paying our politicians and to ask why.
More than £183m has flowed into the British political system during this Parliament, straight from wealthy individuals or companies, and into the bank accounts of political parties, all-party parliamentary groups, and the campaign funds and constituencies of government ministers and MPs from all political parties.
Whilst the UK ranks towards the bottom of global corruption indexes, the way that information about MPs’ outside earnings and who is ultimately funding our politics is published has – for far too long – hindered understanding.
For all the claims of transparency, it’s been very hard to see what’s going on. Whether through default or design, records of financial transactions from donors and companies to politicians are spread across different websites and platforms, different registers, disclosures and databases, some online, some in print and often published in formats that can’t be compared or analysed easily.
The muddle is misleading; concealment by confusion. Its apparent acceptance within Westminster over so many years has resulted in outside earnings, lobbying efforts, paid access and influence-peddling are hard to find, difficult to trace, and easier than they should be to obfuscate.
We believe that has to change. As a voter, checking who is paying and funding your MP should not be laborious and easy to misinterpret. Money talks, and it should be simple and straightforward to check who has any sort of financial relationship with our politicians.
More on Westminster Accounts
Related Topics:
So today, we are helping every voter in the country to answer a series of simple questions: how much do MPs earn outside of their taxpayer-funded salary and from where, which businesses and individuals are donating to MPs and parties to further their political causes and by how much, and how do businesses and other interest groups use Parliament to further their agendas.
Sky News has partnered with Tortoise Media to build an interactive and searchable online tool to show how money flows in the UK’s political system, and to ask who is benefiting.
Advertisement
The Westminster Accounts will be freely available to all on a website and app and pulls in data from public sources but also adds new ways for everyone to search via an MP’s name or a voter’s postcode, which are currently not possible using Parliament’s own platforms.
For the first time, this allows us to do something MPs may find uncomfortable: create leader boards and league tables, showing where the largest sums flow from and to.
Who has received the most money in earnings in this Parliament? Which donors give to individual MPs as well as parties? Which companies and people have donated the most and which MPs are the beneficiaries. And what benefits are provided to all party parliamentary groups – informal networks of MPs often supported financially by companies and countries seeking to forward an agenda.
This is what the tool shines a light on: the Westminster Accounts tool not only organises this data, it maps it – making connections we haven’t been able to make before.
The need for greater transparency is urgent. In recent years, Westminster has felt as if it is mired in a never-ending debate over lobbying and the influence of outside income.
Concerns over MPs’ second jobs and the awarding of government contracts during the pandemic have sparked a growing debate about the priorities of our MPs, their susceptibility to outside offers of pay, gifts and perks, and the risk that outside interests take precedent over the jobs for which they were elected.
We believe that as journalists our role is to provide our readers, viewers and listeners with impartial insight and information. Voters should be able to find, in one place, the details of any financial contributions to MPs.
Our research suggests that more than £17m has been earned by MPs through second jobs in this Parliament alone. It’s far from evenly spread: just 36 MPs having each made £100,000 or more in that time.
We now know the names of the largest individual donors to MPs across all political parties. Whilst some are well known businesses and trades unions, others are companies with no public profiles or obvious purpose, sometimes they are not even based in the UK.
We are committed to maintaining and improving the Westminster Accounts for the rest of this Parliament.
The data in the Westminster Accounts has mostly been submitted by MPs, their staffers, political parties and Parliamentary groups.
Of course, in collecting and verifying it, we found plenty of overlaps, mismatches and errors. If MPs feel the Westminster Accounts don’t do justice to their earnings or expenses, we’ll act to correct and clarify the data promptly.
Our hope is that, in the process, MPs are encouraged to be not just performatively transparent, but genuinely informative about how much money they receive and from whom. In the process, all of our understanding of finance and influence in politics will be improved.
We hope that the Westminster Accounts is a tool that’s not just used by all other newsrooms, but bloggers and journalists, students and academics and, of course, voters across the UK. We hope it will enable better understanding of our politics and, with it, build trust in our democracy.
To be clear, our investigation focuses solely on the flow of money into Westminster, not on detailing the time that many MPs give generously outside of Parliament to work for charities, in the NHS, or in the armed forces. Nobody wants to cut MPs off from the outside world. We do, though, want to understand how people try to inform and influence our politics.
As voters, we get our say at the ballot box every 4 or 5 years in a normal political cycle, but if a business or a donor is writing a cheque to an MP every few months, what does that donor think they are getting for the cash and might it have undue influence over how the MP makes decisions in subjects that their donors cares about?
The Institute for Government recently asked if following recent ethics scandals, politicians are willing to make the changes necessary to rebuild standards in public life.
The Westminster Accounts is intended to contribute to that change. It makes information about the financial workings of Westminster accessible to all.
A raft of tax rises is expected in the budget this lunchtime – with the chancellor acknowledging that voters are “angry at the unfairness in our economy”.
In a newly released video, Rachel Reeves said the public is “frustrated at the pace of change” – but vowed to “take the fair and necessary choices” to tackle the cost of living crisis.
And in a dig at the Conservatives – especially former prime minister Liz Truss – she pledged not to impose austerity, lose control of public spending, or engage in more reckless borrowing.
But given the chancellor had ruled out such a measure last year – because it would “hurt working people” and “take more money out of their payslips” – this will attract criticism from opposition parties.
The chancellor has backed away from raising income tax rates outright, a move that would have breached Labour’s manifesto, but she still needs to find the cash to pay for her public spending plans.
Image: Watch our special programme for Budget 2025 live on Sky News from 11am
Some measures already confirmed by the government include:
It is being reported that the chancellor will also put a cap on the tax-free allowance for salary sacrifice schemes, raise taxes on gambling firms, and bring in a pay-per-mile scheme for electric vehicles.
Setting the scene ahead of the budget at 12.30pm, Ms Reeves said she will “push ahead with the biggest drive for growth in a generation”, promising investment in infrastructure, housing, security, defence, education, and skills.
Although she has vowed not to “duck challenges” nor “accept that our past must define our future”, she admitted that “the damage done from austerity, a chaotic Brexit, and the pandemic were worse than we thought”.
What are the key timings for the budget?
11am – Sky News special programme starts.
About 11.15am – Chancellor Rachel Reeves leaves Downing Street and holds up her red box.
12pm – Sir Keir Starmer faces PMQs.
12.30pm – The chancellor delivers the budget.
About 1.30pm – Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch delivers the budget response.
2.30pm – The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) holds a news conference on the UK economy.
4.30pm – Sky News holds a Q&A on what the budget means for you.
7pm – The Politics Hub special programme on the budget.
The fiscal black hole is down to several factors – including a downgrade in the productivity growth forecast, U-turns on cuts to benefits and the winter fuel allowance, as well as “heightened global uncertainty”.
Nonetheless, the chancellor has promised more investment to cut NHS waiting lists, deal with “waste in the public sector”, and reduce the national debt.
“This budget is for you, the British people. So that together we can build a fairer, stronger, and more secure Britain,” she said.
Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride has said Ms Reeves is “trying to pull the wool over your eyes” – having promised last year that she would not need to raise taxes again.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper has accused her and the prime minister of “yet more betrayals”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:08
What is the ‘milkshake tax’?
What could her key spending announcements be?
As well as filling the black hole in the public finances, these measures could allow the chancellor to spend money on a key demand of Labour MPs – partially or fully lifting the two-child benefits cap, which they say will have an immediate impact on reducing child poverty.
Benefits more broadly will be uprated in line with inflation, at a cost of £6bn, The Times reports.
In an attempt to help households with the cost of the living, the paper also reports that the chancellor will seek to cut energy bills by removing some green levies, which could see funding for some energy efficiency measures reduced.
Other measures The Times says she will announce include retaining the 5p cut in fuel duty, and extending the Electric Car Grant by an extra year, which gives consumers a £3,750 discount at purchase.
The government has already confirmed several key announcements, including:
Extra funding for the NHS will also be announced in a bid to slash waiting lists, including the expansion of the “Neighbourhood Health Service” across the country to bring together GP, nursing, dentistry and pharmacy services – as well as £300m of investment into upgrading technology in the health service.
And although the cost of this is borne by businesses, the chancellor will confirm a 4.1% rise to the national living wage – taking it to £12.71 an hour for eligible workers aged 21 and over.
For a full-time worker over the age of 21, that means a pay increase of £900 a year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:05
What the budget will mean for you
Britons facing ‘cost of living permacrisis’
However, the Tories have hit out at the chancellor for the impending tax rises, with shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride saying in a statement: “Having already raised taxes by £40bn, Reeves said she had wiped the slate clean, she wouldn’t be coming back for more, and it was now on her. A year later and she is set to break that promise.”
He described her choices as “political weakness” – choosing “higher welfare and higher taxes”, and “hardworking families are being handed the bill”.
The Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper is also not impressed, and warned last night: “The economy is at a standstill. Despite years of promises from the Conservatives and now Labour to kickstart growth and clamp down on crushing household bills, the British people are facing a cost-of-living permacrisis and yet more betrayals from those in charge.”
She called on the government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which she argues would “grow our economy and bring in tens of billions for the Exchequer”.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has demanded “bold policies and bold choices that make a real difference to ordinary people”.
The SNP is calling on the chancellor to “help families” rather than “hammer them with billions of pounds of cuts and damaging tax hikes that destroy jobs and hurt economic growth”.
A headline tax-raising measure expected in today’s budget is an extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds for another two years beyond 2028, which should raise about £8bn.
The amount people pay is dependent on how much they earn, with different tax bands kicking in at different income levels.
In the past, these thresholds have been increased in line with inflation. But more recently they have been frozen, leaving people paying more to the exchequer even if actual tax rates stay the same.
Sky News looks at what the thresholds are, the implications of freezing them, and how that causes “fiscal drag”.
Income tax thresholds
England, Northern Ireland and Wales all have the same income tax rates, set by the British government.
Scotland’s income tax bands are set by the Scottish government, so Westminster budget announcements on income tax do not affect workers in Scotland.
For England, Northern Ireland and Wales, there is a “personal allowance” of £12,570, under which no income tax is paid.
For those earning above £100,000, the personal allowance goes down by £1 for every £2 of income, and can go down to zero, so a person can end up paying income tax on all of their income.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
Thresholds were previously increased annually by consumer price index (CPI) inflation – the estimate of the level of prices of goods and services bought by households.
But, because income tax thresholds have been frozen while wages continue to rise, more people are being brought into higher bands and having to pay more income tax.
A worker whose earnings just keep up with inflation is paying a larger proportion of their salary in tax due to the freeze.
This means more money for the government – a lot more.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:05
The budget vs your wallet: How the chancellor could raise billions
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates a continuing freeze in thresholds would raise about £42.9bn annually by the 2027/28 tax year.
And the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has projected that freezes to the basic and higher rates of income tax alone would raise £39bn a year by 2029-30.
That is roughly similar to the amount of revenue that would be raised by increasing all income tax rates by 3.5 percentage points.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:35
Sky News goes inside the room where the budget is decided
Fiscal drag
Freezing income tax thresholds without tax rates increasing has been branded a “stealth tax”, as the government collects more revenue without having to pass a law to raise tax rates.
It is also known as fiscal drag, as more people are pulled into paying tax, or into paying tax at a higher rate.
The OBR estimates the freeze will bring nearly four million more people into paying income tax, three million more people into the higher rate (40%) and 400,000 more into the additional rate (45%) by 2028-29.
The British Army has paused the use of its new Ajax armoured fighting vehicles after “around 30” soldiers suffered vibration and hearing problems following a training exercise at the weekend.
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson said on Tuesday the two-week pause comes after “a small number of soldiers reported symptoms of noise and vibration” in the exercise, which was “immediately stopped”.
The spokesperson said “around 30 personnel presented noise and vibration symptoms” after tests were carried out, but the “vast majority of these have now been medically cleared and are continuing on duty”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:42
Is the army’s new fighting vehicle any good?
A small number “continue to receive expert medical care”, they said.
“Out of an abundance of caution, the minister for defence readiness and industry [Luke Pollard] has asked the army to pause all use of Ajax for training and exercising for two weeks, while a safety investigation is carried out into the events this weekend.
“A small amount of testing of the vehicle will continue, in order to ensure that any issues can to identified and resolved.”
The MoD said the decision “underlines our absolute commitment to the safety of our personnel. As with any major equipment programme, we continue to test and refine the vehicle to ensure safety and performance”.
More on Ministry Of Defence
Related Topics:
“The safety of our personnel is our top priority,” the spokesperson said.
The Ajax, which costs nearly £10m and weighs more than 40 tonnes, is being billed by the ministry as a “next generation” fighting machine.
Image: The Ajax has a 40mm gun
As heavy as a Russian tank, the vehicle is equipped with cameras, protective armour and a 40mm gun, with bullets that can rip through concrete.
Soldiers were taken to hospital this summer after suffering hearing and other injuries because of loud noise and vibrations coming from the vehicles.
Earlier this month, the MoD confirmed that a “small number” of troops had reported noise and vibration concerns following trials on three variants of the tracked vehicle.
A spokesperson said an investigation was carried out and “no systemic issues were found”.
An internal review published in 2021 found that senior soldiers and MoD officials had known for up to two years that earlier faults with the Ajax vehicle had been putting troops at risk of harm.