Westminster Accounts: Following the money

Published

3 years ago

January 8, 2023

admin

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.

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.

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.

UK

World Cup 2026 – who England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will play

Published

2 hours ago

December 6, 2025

admin

World Cup 2026 - who England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will play

Scotland and England now know who they will face in the group stage of the next summer’s world cup.

But the fates of Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Wales won’t be determined until they compete in pre-tournament play-off matches in March.

England are in Group L along with Croatia, Panama and Ghana. Their first match will be against Croatia, who beat them in the semi-finals of the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

Scotland’s first match will be against Haiti, in Group C.

Brazil and Morocco are the other Group C teams – both countries were also in the same opening group as Scotland in the 1998 World Cup in France.

Wales have yet to find out if they will qualify as they must face a play-off against Bosnia and Herzegovina in Cardiff, and then either Italy or Northern Ireland, if they are victorious.

If they can overcome these play-off opponents then they will secure their place in Group B along with Canada, Qatar and Switzerland. But Northern Ireland will also be vying and hoping to guarantee their spot in the same group if they can beat Italy and then either Wales or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Republic of Ireland also need to get through the play-offs first and are paired against the Czech Republic for their semi-final. Should Ireland win that match, they will need to beat either North Macedonia or Denmark to get to the finals where an opening group containing joint hosts Mexico, South Africa and South Korea awaits.

UK

Crafted for one man – this was a World Cup draw like no other

Published

2 hours ago

December 6, 2025

admin

Crafted for one man - this was a World Cup draw like no other

This was a World Cup draw like no other. Crafted less for the teams but for one man.

The choice of venue. The creation of a new trophy. The closing music act.

Donald Trump was lavished with the adulation he craves by FIFA President Gianni Infantino and feels others unfairly deny him.

Knowing how much being overlooked by the Nobel Committee hurt the US president, there was Mr Infantino with FIFA’s newly-created Peace Prize to hand over. And a medal for Mr Trump to wear.

“This is truly one of the great honours of my life,” he said. “And beyond awards, Gianni and I were discussing this. We saved millions and millions of lives.”

This was all on the stage in front of an audience who turned up to find out who they will be playing at the World Cup.

England handed an undaunting route past Croatia, Panama and Ghana. Scotland paired with newcomers Haiti before tricky reunions from their last men’s World Cup in 1998 against Brazil and Morocco.

But the show before the draw could even begin – presided over by Rio Ferdinand – took almost as long as a football match, at 87 minutes after the noon kick-off was delayed.

There was a walk of self-promotion to complete – “I guess they have to wait” – before taking his seat in the Kennedy Center. Or the Trump Kennedy Center as the president takes to calling the venue picked 1.5 miles from the White House.

“It was falling apart,” he said, delaying the walk into the auditorium. “And now it’s, it’s pretty much back.”

Mr Infantino could only watch on, beaming, at his friend.

“We had a dead country,” Mr Trump went on, “and now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world”.

There was the awkwardness of being reminded, before receiving the peace accolade, about threats to launch military strikes on Venezuela to stop the drugs trade.

“I did settle eight wars, and we have a ninth coming,” he swatted away the question. “Which nobody’s ever done before. But I want to really save lives. I don’t need prizes.”

But FIFA knew how much he wanted more gold for the collection with the prize.

More on this story:
What draw means for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland

And for all the mockery and disdain targeted at FIFA, how many sports would relish having the US president spend several hours attending a procedural event determining the placing of teams in groups for a tournament?

How many would dish out the same flattery to secure direct lines to the leader of the nation staging their championship?

Many have benefited from Mr Trump’s stardust and swagger being attached to this spectacle.

Even Port Vale’s most famous fan – Robbie Williams – secured a walk-on role, exceeding his profile this side of the Pond.

And the Village People are reaping the rewards of becoming the unlikeliest of Trump hype acts.

The festivities ended with eyes fixed back up to the presidential seating and the YMCA dance being performed.

This was an afternoon that dispelled any pretence that FIFA keeps a distance from politics. It was unapologetically political. But few speak out in the FIFA world as the redistributed wealth keeps rolling back in their direction.

It would be easy to forget this isn’t entirely America’s World Cup. They’re sharing hosting with Canada and Mexico.

And eventually the spotlight was ceded to their leaders – very briefly – as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney drew out their countries’ names.

But it did live up to FIFA’s mantra that football can unite the world.

The neighbours were brought together here on a snowy day in Washington. And tensions – often stoked by Mr Trump with Canada and Mexico – thawed in the name of football.

UK

Duchess of Sussex ‘reaches out’ to estranged father after reports of leg amputation

Published

2 hours ago

December 6, 2025

admin

Duchess of Sussex 'reaches out' to estranged father after reports of leg amputation

Meghan Markle has “reached out” to her estranged father after reports he had his leg amputated, her spokesperson has said.

Thomas Markle, 81, reportedly had his leg amputated following surgery in the Philippines, where he moved to this year.

Meghan has been estranged from her father since around the time of her wedding to Prince Harry in May 2018.

Mr Markle, a retired television lighting director and director of photography, made headlines across the globe after he was caught staging paparazzi photographs in the days ahead of the ceremony.

A spokesperson for the Duchess of Sussex said: “I can confirm she has reached out to her father.”

Meghan is said to have previously tried to reach out to him in the past.

Mr Markle has never met his grandchildren Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

At the start of this year, Mr Markle told of how he dreamed of bringing his “whole family together” and wished his daughter “no ill-will”.

Mr Markle revealed that he didn’t “like some of the things” Meghan had done but would “always love her”.

His interview with the Mail on Sunday came amid the duchess’ return to Instagram and the release of a trailer for her lifestyle show on Netflix.

Mr Markle said: “I’m not running away. I am going in search of a more positive life.

“Every day I see something about Meghan. This week it has been the new TV show.”

In his first interview after his daughter’s wedding, Mr Markle said he didn’t attend the big day because he was embarrassed about staging the photos.

“The truth is I couldn’t get over the fact that that had happened. All that stuff was working on me, I had a bit of a heart condition.

“This pushed me a little further to the part where I had heart palpitations. I had to drive at 2am to a hospital. They sent me to another little hospital and then they sent me to a bigger hospital and I had a heart attack.”

A day-and-a-half later he said he felt better and checked himself out against doctors’ wishes in a bid to make it to the wedding, but the heart palpitations returned when he got home, which at the time was in Mexico.

“At that time I started getting chest pains and I said I have to cancel because I didn’t take care of the heart problem before. I had a good friend take me back to a hospital across the border to the States where I was told that my condition was very bad and they had to operate, and I had heart surgery.”