Corbyn stopped Starmer taking a second job doing high-paid consultancy work for law firm Mishcon de Reya in 2017, several key figures from the Corbyn leadership have confirmed to me.

Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no." >>>
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.

Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Starmer's office had argued there was nothing to worry about in him taking the job, because the Mishcon training academy, which he would be advising, was "really cool."
When the issue blew up & the Tories attacked (Mishcon represented Gina Miller, Starmer's brief was Brexit), Starmer wanted to stick with Mishcon's words that "We are in discussions with Keir Starmer about reappointing him as an adviser" & say it was a limited role—ie ride it out.
However, the job was vetoed, whereupon Starmer switched to claim it was his decision, saying "I am grateful for Mischon de Reya for discussing a possible role advising the Mishcon Academy with me but given my other commitments, I have decided not to further the discussions."
Fast forward to Monday. Starmer tried to take the high ground on sleaze by quoting 2015 Labour policy that "paid consultancies ought to go."

@SamCoatesSky said "You were in talks to take a job yourself."

Starmer said "No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Viewers got no sense from Starmer's response that, if not for Corbyn, he would have taken that job. In fact, not only was he in talks/discussions (potato/potato) with Mishcon in 2017, but he'd worked for them in 2016—while a Labour MP—getting paid £4,500 a month for 6 hours' work
In the Sky interview Starmer described Ed Miliband's 2015 policy banning MPs from taking paid consultancy jobs as "an obvious change we ought to make straight away," which begs the question why it wasn't so obvious to him in 2016.
Unwilling to answer the Mishcon question, Starmer deflected onto the matter of MPs giving legal advice, saying he had given up his legal certificate two years ago. But even this is murky, as he has recently registered large sums with no transparency about who has paid him.
It is striking, given Starmer's conduct towards Corbyn since last autumn, that back in 2017 Corbyn's office didn't brief against Starmer, or criticise him, but let him present the decision as his own.

It now emerges that Starmer has Corbyn to thank for saving him from himself.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Nunns

Alex Nunns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @alexnunns

Nov 13, 2021
As I was saying...

Corbyn: "Nobody who was in a front bench position...would be allowed to take a second job...I made that very clear to everybody including him [Starmer]."

“He’s saying there was no such request made.”

“There was an absolutely clear request and decision made.”
To recap, Starmer's assertions about this second job business have now been flatly contradicted by Jeremy Corbyn on the record, by three then-members of the shadow cabinet, and by email and text evidence from the time.

Why he chose to dig this hole I do not know.
People have responded who cares? He didn't take the job (thanks to JC) & Tory corruption is on a different scale. Of course it is—so why not tell the truth? Presumably it's because the fact he wanted to take the job does undermine his position now.
Read 5 tweets
Nov 12, 2021
Contrary to claims by Starmer’s spokesperson yesterday, Starmer did turn down a lucrative second job in 2017 AFTER an intervention from Corbyn and his office. Since I reported that on Weds, Starmer has claimed it is "completely untrue." But emails and texts show that to be false.
Starmer decided to turn down the job down on Tuesday 25 July 2017, saying "I have decided not to further the discussions." He now claims this was before Corbyn's staff "were even aware of it."

But this was more than 24 hours after Corbyn's staff had intervened.
Here are the receipts.

At 8am 24 July, Starmer's office wanted to ride the controversy out, asking Corbyn's team to say the job was a "limited role" & discussions were ongoing. "Keir doesn't want to say anything new" they said.

Corbyn's office replied that wasn't acceptable.
Read 6 tweets
Nov 8, 2021
"You were in talks to take a job yourself."

"No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Credit to @SamCoatesSky for asking the question.
The next question should have been "So were you in discussion about taking a job?" just to see if he replied "No I wasn't. I was in talks."
Read 4 tweets
Sep 22, 2021
There's a lot of nonsense being spoken by the Labour leadership & its friendly media about how Keir fixing the leadership election rules for his faction is intended to empower trade unions. It isn't, and it won't. It's just a factional power grab. Here's why. >
Even under the electoral college, trade union members have one member one vote in their section. They have minds of their own. Often, they don't vote for the candidate their union recommends (e.g. they voted for Blair). This change won't give union leaderships any more leverage.
It will, though, give Labour MPs massive power to veto candidates they don't like. In the past, they vetoed candidates who were supporters of trade unions in favour of candidates who regarded trade unions as a kind of embarrassing uncle they had to see at Christmas time.
Read 17 tweets
Sep 13, 2021
Len McCluskey's revelation about the deal with Starmer to lift Corbyn's suspension has forced a response from Starmer's office. It's contradictory, weird & accidentally damning.

Most important: they don't contest any of the direct quotes Len provides.…
For example look at this: direct quotes from Starmer, including the admission "He put me in an impossible position and I had no choice."

They don't deny he said it, they just say it doesn't mean what it means. "Labour sources denied those words were tantamount to an admission."
Similarly, Len asked Starmer "if we could reach an agreed form of words that both Jeremy and you, Keir, are happy with, then the suspension could be lifted?" Starmer said "Yes." That's unambiguous. It's an agreement. No denial it was said.
Read 17 tweets
Sep 11, 2021
The real story of what happened with @JessicaLBarnard yesterday is incredible.

The party said she was sent a notice of investigation “in error”. That was mocked—how do you investigate someone & send them an intimidating letter at 1 am by mistake? But it was actually true. >
True in the sense that it was done completely outside the official processes in what must count as the definition of bringing the party into disrepute.
First, the context: Young Labour is a thorn in the side of the leadership, a left-wing outpost in the party. The leaderhship's plan is to revive Labour Students (traditionally a right-wing part of the party) to displace Young Labour.
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!