Westminster Accounts: Transparency in politics often feels like it falls short – we want to shine a light on that
On a freezing, foggy evening in December, the House of Commons finally formally responded to the last major financial sleaze scandal to hit parliament, and in doing so, sent an important signal about the way politicians look after themselves.
After more than a year of deliberation, the debate and vote late in the evening of Monday 12 December was the moment MPs would finally agree to a package of reforms in the aftermath of the Owen Paterson scandal.
Some might have expected fireworks, given they were collectively responding to the disgrace of one of their own found guilty of lobbying for cash during the pandemic – bringing the stench of political scandal back to Westminster and even hastening Boris Johnson’s departure after the former PM initially stuck up for Paterson.
The votes came shortly after 10.30pm and saw barely half of all MPs shuffling unenthusiastically through the division lobbies to register their position.
Read more:
MPs earn £17.1m on top of their salaries since the last election – with Tories taking £15.4m
Search for your MP using the Westminster Accounts tool
Westminster Accounts: Following the money
How to explore the database for yourself
I spent much of the evening in central lobby next door and detected little passion or interest about the subject under discussion from all but a handful.
A year earlier, such a vote would have been electric because sleaze was in the headlines, but as the temperatures that night dipped below zero again, it was clear neither MPs nor commentators cared much.
What was agreed that night did amount to an important incremental tightening of the rules that was welcomed by campaigners. But the focus of the Westminster juggernaut had moved on with the change of prime minister. The vote was of little interest because many thought it of minimal practical consequence to them – it might mean up to 30 MPs have to reassess second jobs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How you can explore the Westminster Accounts
The Labour plan to ban second jobs had no chance of a majority after the Tories backed away earlier in the year. The debate, decision and votes generated not a single headline anywhere. Yet still, this moment sends a fascinating signal.
The real importance of what happened on 12 December 2022 was that MPs were telling the public that, in broad terms, the sleaze safeguards work well as they are. They were ultimately endorsing much of the status quo and deciding it was to stay in place.
The existing system to regulate MPs was, they were saying, fit for purpose and the current transparency declaration rules should stay as they are. And while there is genuine division over banning second jobs between the main parties, there was little sense of a need for other changes.
So what mattered that night was what was not on the table in the Commons and what was not discussed, but so many questions remain.
Is this the best system we could possibly have, given the Paterson affair happened as it did? Have MPs really come up with the best way to collect and publish data about outside earnings, gifts and donations? Is the register of members’ financial interests a sufficient guide to the financial dealings of MPs?
Why shouldn’t we be able to compare MPs’ outside earnings and rank them in order of what they get? Why shouldn’t we be able to work out who are the biggest donors to individual MPs, just as we can for political parties? Why shouldn’t we see more easily the networks donors give to? Who receives the largest sums, and which MPs appear to need no additional donations at all?
Just because there is no apparent appetite amongst MPs to explore these questions does not mean that others should not.
That is why today Sky News launches the Westminster Accounts. Built as a collaboration with our partners at Tortoise Media, it marks a major experiment in transparency and public accountability in an attempt to shine a light on how money moves through the political system. And unlike most other exercises in journalism, we are sharing our workings.
In a landmark move, we are publishing a new publicly available tool to give voters the chance to explore. Everyone will be able to play with the financial data we have collected from publicly available sources about each MP, explore a new universe connecting the financial dots across our political universe – and draw their own conclusions.
It is an enormous effort lasting over six months, involving dozens of journalists, data scientists and designers from both media organisations, and is ready to use right now.
The Westminster Accounts in three steps
The Westminster Accounts involves three steps. Firstly, using publicly available data from parliament’s register of members’ interests and the Electoral Commission, Sky News commissioned Tortoise Media to build a spreadsheet showing us data about MPs’ earnings, donations and gifts in this parliament, since December 2019, alongside party donation data from the Electoral Commission database.
We now, for the first time, have a single figure for how much each MP has earned in this parliament and how much has been donated and from where. Alongside this, we have taken the information from the parliament website about the financial benefits provided by private companies and other organisations to fund all-party parliamentary groups that support informal networks of MPs, to help look at business activity in Westminster.
Secondly, Tortoise Media has turned this spreadsheet into a snazzy, carefully curated online tool accessible to everyone via the Sky News website and app. This allows anyone to, in the first instance, search the financial information of any MP and understand their financial affairs in comparison to colleagues.
Then in a powerful and unprecedented move, once users have explored one MP’s financial affairs, they then have the ability to search by donor, MP and party in the political-financial universe represented by a series of globes. This tool will be updated every few weeks with the latest data provided by the authorities, at least up until the next general election.
Thirdly, Sky News has studied the data collected and used it to tell a series of interesting stories both about what we discovered and what the numbers reveal – but also about where the transparency promised by our leaders falls short.
Today we look at second jobs data, publishing a league table of the highest earners since December 2019, a feat not possible until now. But by treating the data as a starting point for our enquiries, we go deeper by examining company accounts of leading politicians and comparing second job promises with reality.
The significance of the stories in the coming days will be the discovery of what politicians have not told us, as well as what they have.
Risks of the project
This project is not without risk. We have created league tables of donors and earners, something the political system disliked. We will be told we have ignored context – some earnings are donated to charity, some MPs will earn more than others for less work, and MPs in marginal seats will have to raise more funds for campaigning than those in safe seats.
But we defend our right to look at the numbers in this way; and encourage the conversation that will follow, however difficult.
The most complex task, in crude terms, has been to turn the register of members’ interests into a spreadsheet. This involved turning the register’s complex written entries into stark figures for spreadsheet cells, stripped of the context which appears in their preferred format to allow us and our viewers to compare like with like. MPs will inevitably object, assert the project unfair and hunt for discrepancies.
This is not a process that – yet – can be done automatically and has involved hundreds of man-hours to check and double-check the entries. Given the volume of data on that scale, human error is an inevitability, and we will correct those and listen carefully to complaints.
However, we have assembled the data based on information MPs are required to submit, based on a methodology which has been externally validated and is available on this website. We profoundly believe and would justify our right to attempt such an exercise, to compare and contrast MPs – something by their nature they often feel uncomfortable about.
But rather than avoiding the exercise, Sky News is attempting to help shine a light on how money works in politics, so the public better understands what is going on.
If MPs are to defend what they believe are reasonable, legitimate practices, explaining them clearly rather than hiding them away might be a better answer.
Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government, goes further, suggesting it would have been entirely possible for MPs to do what we have – but avoided this for a reason.
“I think it’s a really good question why parliament hasn’t done this before for itself and the answer really is hiding in plain sight. There’s no incentive. For MPs really to make it easy to do the sort of comparison that you’ve done in this exercise.
“It’s much easier for them to say we’ve been transparent data is out there. People can go and look for it if they want to. But in fact, that data isn’t very easy to use, and it’s not real transparency.”
“I think the value of this tool is it enables us to see what real transparency might look like and hopefully, parliament and the Electoral Commission, will reflect and think, are we actually achieving the end that we’re trying to achieve? When we require transparency from our politicians, from our political parties, should we be doing this better ourselves? Should it be up to Sky and Tortoise to be doing this data analysis?”
Transparency is the best disinfectant
After every Westminster scandal, we are told that “transparency is the best disinfectant”. That is what we are testing in this exercise, and looking at the information they are required to submit to evaluate what it tells us.
We started from an important set of principles. There is no assumption money in politics is a bad thing, just a political reality. This project has not set out to find a scandal and nor have we stumbled across one.
We make no judgement on MPs’ holding second jobs or getting money from outside sources, just defend our right to try and compare MPs with each other on the basis of their earnings. (We note Sir Geoffrey Cox, who is happy to provide a lengthy explanation of his barrister work, was elected by the voters of West Devon and Torridge with healthy majorities at each of the last five general elections.)
Our only goal has been to understand better what goes on as money flows through the system.
But as viewers will see from our reporting this week, that transparency has felt like it too often falls short, and when MPs are asked questions about donations, earnings, donors or gifts, they shy away from the camera and try and ignore the questions. Far too often evasion is the default response when questions involve money.
Politicians always tell us that we can trust them because they are transparent – that they are upfront about all of their dealings.
Last month MPs quietly made clear they were broadly content with the level of transparency the public is offered, tinkering with rather than transforming the system. This week the Westminster Accounts will pose the question of whether the rest of us are too.
UK
Rachel Reeves says budget ‘non-negotiable’ on China trip – as former PM says she’s been ‘rumbled’ by market turmoil
The chancellor has said the budget is “non-negotiable” on a visit to China in the face of volatile markets back in the UK.
Rachel Reeves flew out on Friday after ignoring calls from opposition parties to cancel the long-planned trip because of economic turmoil at home.
The past week has seen a drop in the pound and an increase in government borrowing costs, which has fuelled speculation of more spending cuts or tax rises.
The Tories have accused the chancellor of having “fled to China” rather than explain how she will fix the UK’s flatlining economy, while the Liberal Democrats say she should stay in Britain and announce a “plan B” to address market volatility.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson said Ms Reeves had “been rumbled” and said she should “make her way to HR and collect her P45 – or stay in China”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor’s ‘pragmatic’ approach to China
The chancellor visits a Brompton bike shop in Beijing. Pic: AP
However, during a visit to Beijing’s flagship store of UK bike maker Brompton, Ms Reeves said she would not alter her economic plans, with the October budget designed to return the UK to economic stability.
“Growth is the number one mission of this government,” she said.
“The fiscal rules laid out in the budget are non-negotiable. Economic stability is the bedrock for economic growth and prosperity.”
The treasury added that making Britain better off will be at the “forefront of the chancellor’s mind” during her visit.
She said that “action” will be taken to meet the fiscal rules. That action is reported to include deeper spending cuts than the 5% efficiency savings already expected to be announced later this year, while cuts to the welfare bill are also said to be under consideration.
👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈
The chancellor is being accompanied by Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey and other senior executives.
She met her counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, in Beijing on Saturday to discuss financial services, trade and investment, before heading to Shanghai for talks with representatives across British and Chinese businesses.
She will also “raise difficult issues”, including Chinese firms supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and concerns over constraints on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, the Treasury said.
But it did not mention whether Ms Reeves would raise the treatment of the Uyghur community, which Downing Street said Foreign Secretary David Lammy would do during his visit last year.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. Pic: AP
On Friday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy defended the trip, telling Sky News that the climbing cost of government borrowing was a “global trend” that had affected many countries, “most notably the United States”.
“We are still on track to be the fastest growing economy, according to the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] in Europe,” she told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast.
“China is the second-largest economy, and what China does has the biggest impact on people from Stockton to Sunderland, right across the UK, and it’s absolutely essential that we have a relationship with them.”
Ed Conway analysis: The chancellor’s gamble with China
Grim economic news raises stakes for embattled chancellor’s controversial China trip
Rachel Reeves’s trip to China – the first by a British chancellor since 2019 – was always going to be controversial.
In recent years Conservative governments have been keeping Beijing at arm’s length – amid concern about espionage, the situation in Hong Kong, and the treatment of the Uyghurs.
David Cameron’s so-called “Golden Era” of engagement in the pursuit of economic investment, notoriously capped by a visit to an Oxfordshire pub for a pint with President Xi Jinping – has been widely written off as a naive mistake.
There are many – not least the incoming US President Donald Trump – who believe we should maintain our distance.
But in another era of economic turmoil, the pursuit of growth is the government’s number one priority.
This week’s difficult market news – with the cost of government borrowing surging, and the value of the pound falling – has thoroughly raised the stakes.
It is the first UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) since 2019, building on the Labour government’s plan for a “pragmatic” policy with the world’s second-largest economy.
Sir Keir Starmer was the first British prime minister to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping in six years at the G20 summit in Brazil last autumn.
Relations between the UK and China have become strained over the last decade as the Conservative government spoke out against human rights abuses and concerns grew over national security risks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How much do we trade with China?
Navigating this has proved tricky given China is the UK’s fourth largest single trading partner, with a trade relationship worth almost £113bn and exports to China supporting over 455,000 jobs in the UK in 2020, according to the government.
During the Tories’ 14 years in office, the approach varied dramatically from the “golden era” under David Cameron to hawkish aggression under Liz Truss, while Rishi Sunak vowed to be “robust” but resisted pressure from his own party to brand China a threat.
The Treasury said a stable relationship with China would support economic growth and that “making working people across Britain secure and better off is at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind”.
Ahead of her visit, Ms Reeves said: “By finding common ground on trade and investment, while being candid about our differences and upholding national security as the first duty of this government, we can build a long-term economic relationship with China that works in the national interest.”
UK
Grim economic news raises stakes for embattled chancellor Rachel Reeves’s controversial China trip
Rachel Reeves’s trip to China – the first by a British chancellor since 2019 – was always going to be controversial.
In recent years Conservative governments have been keeping Beijing at arm’s length – amid concern about espionage, the situation in Hong Kong, and the treatment of the Uyghurs.
David Cameron‘s so-called “Golden Era” of engagement in the pursuit of economic investment, notoriously capped by a visit to an Oxfordshire pub for a pint with President Xi Jinping – has been widely written off as a naive mistake.
There are many – not least the incoming US President Donald Trump – who believe we should maintain our distance.
But in another era of economic turmoil, the pursuit of growth is the government’s number one priority.
Rachel Reeves visits a Beijing bike shop. Pic: AP
This week’s difficult market news – with the cost of government borrowing surging, and the value of the pound falling – has thoroughly raised the stakes.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems argued the visit should be cancelled.
Prominent China hawk and former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith MP summed up both arguments against it.
“The trip is pointless,” he wrote on X. “As the disastrous ‘Golden Era’ showed, the murderous, brutal, law-breaking, communist regime in China will not deliver the growth the Labour government craves.
“Instead, she should stay home and try to sort out the awful mess her budget has created.”
President Xi Jinping and David Cameron in 2015. Pic: PA
Yet cancelling the trip would have been a diplomatic disaster and far from adding to economic stability would surely have spread a sense of crisis (with inevitable comparisons to Denis Healey’s abandoned visit to Hong Kong in 1976, months before he was forced to apply from an emergency loan from the IMF to save the pound from collapse).
Instead, the government argues the current market situation is a result of “global trends”, and Reeves insists she will be sticking to the decisions taken in the budget.
Read more from Sky News:
Reform councillors quit over Farage leadership
Bibby Stockholm barge contract ends
“Growth is the number one mission of this government. The fiscal rules laid out in the budget are non-negotiable. Economic stability is the bedrock for economic growth and prosperity.”
Improving the UK/China relationship should “boost our economic growth for the benefit of working people in both of our countries” she said during her meeting with vice premier He Lifeng.
In a speech to media afterwards, Reeves was delighted to announce a big, concrete number to justify the value of the trip, claiming the agreements reached would be worth £600m to the UK economy over five years.
Pragmatism is the new order of the day. Labour argues re-establishing “pragmatic engagement” with China is in the national interest, and it’s a word Reeves used four times in five minutes during her speech.
Ed Conway analysis: The chancellor’s gamble with China
The government insists this new closer relationship will make it easier for them to raise tricky issues and we did hear the chancellor flagging concerns about Hong Kong and the role of China in connection with Russia’s war in Ukraine – though not the Uyghurs, or the imprisoned British citizen and pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai.
The challenge going forward will be to show that cosying up to China is worth it.
There’s a lot riding on it for the chancellor – with questions being openly asked about her economic strategy given the growing likelihood that to meet her fiscal rules on balancing tax and spending she will be forced to make deep cuts to government departments this spring.
We are promised a big speech from the chancellor on the government’s plans for growth in the coming weeks.
In many ways, the trip to China may have been a welcome break from the difficult decisions which await her return.
Former Manchester United footballer David May has shared his fears about developing dementia – and the impact that would have on his family.
It comes after the ex-footballer revealed David Windass, the former Hull City, Bradford City and Middlesbrough striker, has been diagnosed with stage two dementia.
During the early stages of dementia, people show a very mild cognitive decline, including occasional memory loss and struggles finding words, according to Dementia UK.
May shared 55-year-old Windass’s diagnosis – with his permission – during a BBC Breakfast interview.
“I actually said, ‘Would you mind if I mentioned it?’ And he went, ‘No. 100% – you mention it. Get it out there’. Not to put Deano under the spotlight, but the issue,” he told Sky News’ sports correspondent Rob Harris.
“I’d hate my children to go through that, knowing their dad doesn’t know them, doesn’t recognise them, can’t speak to them. It’s tragic.”
May, a defender with United’s 1999 treble-winning team, also revealed he is worried about his long-term health.
“Ask me would I do it again? Football? 100% – because I love football. It’s my life,” the 54-year-old said.
“Would I have done as many headers through training, and continuously heading in training? Maybe not.
“But I have just got to wait and see. It’s a waiting game. Are you going to be the one that’s going to miss it?
“One in three-and-a-half people will get dementia who have become professional footballers.”
May (top centre) won the treble with Manchester United in 1998/99. Pic: firo Sportphoto/ J’rgen Fromme/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
Asked if he thought heading would eventually be banned, he said: “No, I don’t think you need to eradicate heading. It’s part of the game, and you don’t want to take that out of the game.
“It has been an incredible, and still is a wonderful, wonderful game.
“But maybe the amount of headers you do in training can change.
“I know that before, probably 15, 20 times, you’d head a ball in training. And then on a Friday you’d go through it to get your timings right, maybe another five or six before the game starts, and then all the heading in games.
“It’s a lot. It’s a hell of a lot of headers in a footballer’s career.”
May has joined campaigners pushing for more help for footballers affected by neurodegenerative diseases.
The diagnosis at such a young age for Windass has brought home the reality that this remains a major problem in football.
“It’s not going to go away. Day in, day out, players are heading the balls in games, and you know, are they aware of it? Probably not,” said May.
“We need to keep fighting for the right answers and the right funds.”
David May speaking to Sky News’ sports correspondent Rob Harris
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram have given their backing to the cause.
The Football Families for Justice (FFJ) campaign has the support of former England captain David Beckham, and is now seeking to secure an amendment to the Football Governance Bill which would give the independent regulator the power to make it a statutory duty on the football authorities to develop a comprehensive dementia strategy, including a care fund agreed with affected players and their families.
“When you think of how much money comes into the Premier League now, it’s billions,” said May.
“It’s a pittance what they could donate to these lads who drastically need help and care.”
Read more from Sky News:
UK records coldest January in 15 years
Man crushed to death crossing Channel in small boat
In addition to funding research, the Football Association is also working to remove deliberate headings from youth football up to under-11s by 2026. It has also introduced rules on high-force headers in training at all levels of adult football to reduce the risks to individuals.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway