MP James McMurdock says ‘business dealings' compliant after he resigns Reform whip
The MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock 'removed the party whip from himself' pending the outcome of an investigation relating to allegations around 'business propriety during the pandemic'.
The Sunday Times published a story on Saturday which alleged two businesses connected to Mr McMurdock took out Covid-19 loans totalling £70,000 during the pandemic.
In a statement posted on X on Saturday afternoon, Mr McMurdock said he had been contacted by a reporter.
'I confirmed to the journalist that all my business dealings had always been conducted fully within the law and in compliance with all regulations and that appropriately qualified professionals had reviewed all activity confirming the same.'
He added: 'As a precautionary measure, and for the protection of Reform UK, I have asked to have the whip suspended temporarily.'
According to Companies House, Mr McMurdock is listed as the current director of Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited, and a former director of J A M Financial Limited, a position he resigned in 2021.
Both firms are shown to have overdue accounts and confirmation statements, and both have an 'active proposal to strike off'.
Reform's chief whip Lee Anderson had earlier said that the allegations against Mr McMurdock which led to him removing the whip 'relate to business propriety during the pandemic and before he became an MP'.
Mr Anderson said Mr McMurdock has 'agreed to co-operate in full with any investigation'.
In a statement published on Reform's X account on Saturday afternoon, Mr Anderson said: 'I have today received a call from James McMurdock who has advised me, as chief whip, that he has removed the party whip from himself pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations that are likely to be published by a national newspaper.
'The allegations relate to business propriety during the pandemic and before he became an MP,' Mr Anderson said.
The statement said Reform would not be commenting further for the moment.
Mr McMurdock has represented South Basildon and East Thurrock since last July's general election.
He won the seat by 98 votes, beating Labour into second place, and taking the seat from the Conservatives.
Labour chairwoman Ellie Reeves has said that the party 'owe the public an urgent answer about the financial conduct of Mr McMurdock'.
'The public deserve to know about the proper use of public funds by Reform UK MPs given their new councils claim to be conducting inquiries into 'government efficiency'. Does Farage think he is fit to be an MP?' she said.
Of the five MPs elected under the Reform banner in July 2024, two now sit as independents.
Rupert Lowe, who represents Great Yarmouth, was suspended earlier this year following allegations about his conduct which he has denied.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
39 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Nigel Farage is UK's 'most respectful' political leader, new poll shows
Nigel Farage is UK's 'most respectful' political leader, new poll shows Pollsters took the mood of the nation a year after Labour took charge Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage (Image: Getty Images ) A third of people in Britain believe Nigel Farage is the "most respectful" politician, pollsters say. Polling of more than 7,000 people and research since the general election a year ago has shown bad news all round for Labour, with a loss of support from new and existing Labour voters. Broken promises and policy u-turns were big reasons for a loss of support, the research found. Nigel Farage came out above Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in questions about which leader respects people more. Research by More in Common and UCL Policy Lab asked people about the big political parties, leaders and respect and found: Most think little has changed since the 2024 General Election Two thirds of Britons think Labour lacks respect for them U-turns on winter fuel payment, welfare changes and immigration have undermined Labour's voter base Asked to give Labour a report card, Britons give them an E Since the General Election, the proportion of Britons who think that Keir Starmer does not respect people like them has more than doubled: 63% now say that the Prime Minister lacks respect for them. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: PA ) Article continues below And similarly, they feel the party he leads lacks respect too. In May 2024, 40% of Britons said the Labour Party respected them, and only 34% disagreed. Looking at Reform UK, the party led by Nigel Farage, there were high figures among those who identify as Reform voters for statements like "politicians do not respect my contribution to society" and "my values are not represented by politicians". Britons are more likely to say that Nigel Farage - rather than Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch - respects people like them. While a third said Nigel Farage is the figure who is most respectful, just 24% answered the same for the Labour or Conservative leader. Asked why they were turning away from Labour, the main reason voters gave - regardless of who they would vote for instead - is broken promises and u-turns on previous commitments. More than a third (36%) select this as a reason. Also high on the list is failing to deliver on the cost of living (31%), and their changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance (27%). Labour's defectors to Reform cite failures on immigration as a driving factor, while Labour's progressive defectors point to cuts to disability benefits. The polling found Labour is losing voters. Only three in five of those who previously voted for Labour would still in a general election held tomorrow but the rest are defecting across the board - 11% to Reform, 8% to Lib Dem, 4% to the Greens and 4% to the Conservatives. A further one in ten say they don't know how they would vote. There is further bad news looking at the people who backed Labour for the first time at the two most recent general elections. Of the voters Labour gained between 2019 and 2024, only 43% would back them now showing a dramatic loss among first time voters but there are also serious questions about the support among previously lifelong supporters. Article continues below Marc Stears, Director, UCL Policy Lab, said: "What voters want to know most of all is: who does this government stand for? What kind of people does it most respect? Whose interests does it put first? A lot of the electorate thought they knew the answer to that one year ago. Now they're not so sure."
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Starmer will get it right after first getting it wrong … again
Sir Keir Starmer has just enjoyed his first prime ministerial birthday. No formal celebrations are understood to have taken place in No 10 over the weekend, though he may have been ambushed with a cake. It does happen. The consensus on his first year is that he has been uniquely skilled at making sure he suffers the maximum amount of pain for the very smallest amount of benefit. He has crossed the street to be punched in the face by blame. He and Rachel Reeves have liked to brand this relentless stampede toward loathing as being unafraid to take 'tough decisions'. Scrapping means-tested winter fuel payments, hammering the disabled; these were 'tough' decisions. And then, soon after, they were not afraid to take the even tougher decisions, of making themselves look ridiculous by not going through with them. In an interview to mark his first year, Starmer did not disagree with the verdict of a football friend who had called him 'a hard bastard'. He does himself down. To take all these tough decisions not once but twice is not merely hard but double hard. Great British Energy, renationalised rail, renters' rights and employment rights; these are all theoretically popular ideas but no one has noticed. Why? Because the government has made a spectacular show of doing and undoing again some of the most unpopular policies in decades, actions from which no one gains and only they suffer. Labour's second year began with a big bold plan to turn this frown upside down. What was Labour's most popular policy from the glory days of 1997? Sure Start centres, special community hubs for new parents that transformed life chances for children, which should never have been scrapped. And so to the dispatch box came the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, to announce the plan to bring back Sure Start, under the new name of 'Best Start'. But, it not being 1997 any more, Phillipson and co had spent the weekend doing all they could to make sure no credit could come their way. Instead, what should have been the most popular policy announcement in ages was overshadowed by Labour's worst humiliation yet — the reform of funding entitlements for children with special educational needs. This stuff is toxic. In a fractured and polarised Commons, the state of special needs education is the one area of unity. Every MP spent weeks last year knocking on doors, trying to win votes and in every part of the country they heard that there's a crisis in special educational needs. While Phillipson spoke, members on both sides bobbed with enthusiasm. It was clear they were desperate to ask about anything other than the subject at hand. On Sunday, she'd been given a number of chances to assure the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that she would not be cutting the budget for special educational needs. That assurance did not come. On Monday morning on Times Radio, Stephen Morgan, the education minister responsible for early years, provided the same amount of reassurance — zero. At the moment, more than half a million children receive thousands in what are called education, health and care plans (EHCPs), at a cost of £12 billion a year. Reforms to this system are coming in the autumn, and 'reforms' rarely mean anything other than spending less money. Not for the first time in the past year, Mark Francois was the voice of reason, which tells you more than you need to know about the past year. 'The secretary of state has pointedly refused to rule out scrapping EHCPs,' he said. 'If that is her intention, could I offer her some advice: please don't do that.' Did we hear a 'Don't worry, I won't'? No we did not. Francois got the Kuenssberg treatment. What we heard was the following: 'We are taking our time to get this right.' If these words are frightening parents, they needn't worry. We know how it goes. 'Taking our time to get it right,' means one thing. Starmer and co have alighted on a third way all of their own. They'll get it right in the end, but only by first getting it wrong. As the sign on President Reagan's desk never quite read, there is no limit to what a man can do, as long as he makes sure he never, ever gets the credit.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Captain Tom Foundation probe has not impacted trust in charities, says watchdog
Despite strong public awareness of an investigation which found mismanagement in relation to the Captain Tom Foundation, the Charity Commission said 'overall trust in charities has not been impacted and has remained stable'. High levels of trust in charities dipped slightly by 1% to 57% this year, while low levels of trust rose to 10% from 9% last year, although the commission said such small percentage changes are not statistically significant and so levels are considered similar to last year. The daughter of pandemic fundraising hero Captain Sir Tom Moore and her husband were accused of 'repeated' misconduct in a report published in November by the commission into the running of the foundation set up in his name. Sir Tom became a household name in the midst of Covid-19, raising millions for NHS charities by walking laps of his garden in lockdown. But separately, a £1.4 million book deal and an £18,000 awards ceremony appearance fee were among the financial benefits Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore enjoyed through their family links to the Captain Tom Foundation. The millions raised by Sir Tom and donated to NHS Charities Together before the foundation was formed were not part of the commission's inquiry. The commission's report found a 'repeated pattern of behaviour' which saw Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore make private gains and which the watchdog said will have left the public feeling 'misled'. But, in annual research, the commission said average trust in charities has remained consistently high since 2020, with greater levels of trust among the public for charities than for banks, police, social services, the ordinary person on the street, private companies, local councils, newspapers, MPs and Government ministers. Only doctors came out with a more favourable result, with 68% of the 4,092 people surveyed saying they had a high level of trust in the medical professionals. The Captain Tom charity investigation was one of the main reasons people said they were aware of the commission, and the regulator said its handling of that inquiry appeared to have increased positivity towards the watchdog. In its report, it stated: 'While there have been high levels of awareness of the Captain Tom Foundation, overall trust in charities has not been impacted and has remained stable, maybe due to how the Charity Commission have handled the investigation. 'Focus group participants were balanced in their views, as while actions of high-profile charities could impact their trust, there was also a sense that it wasn't fair to question all charities due to the actions of a few.' Earlier this year a foundation spokesperson revealed the family had demanded Sir Tom's name be removed from the charity, changing it from the Captain Tom Foundation to the 1189808 Foundation, reflecting the organisation's charity number. A commission spokesperson said: 'Despite some high-profile examples of charity wrongdoing over the last year, these results suggest the public are well aware such instances are very rare. 'This points to the benefits all charities gain from effective, visible regulation, which gives the public confidence in supporting registered charities with their money and time.' Mrs Ingram-Moore previously said she is 'sorry they (people) feel misled', telling the BBC in March: 'There was never any intent to mislead. And if there was any misleading, it wasn't our doing.' Overall, almost two thirds of people (64%) of those surveyed said they believed most of the money raised by charities goes to the end cause, up 7% on the previous year. The commission's annual survey also showed that the proportion of people getting food, medical or financial support from charitable organisations has increased in recent years, from 3% in 2020 to 9%. In this same period, the proportion of people donating to or fundraising for charity fell from 62% to 48%, with the commission noting that 'households have felt the pinch'. The proportion had already fallen below half last year, dipping to 47%. The survey findings also suggested charities campaigning on issues either makes people more likely to support the organisation or makes no difference. Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth said: 'The data paints both a challenging picture and a hopeful one – showing a sector that continues to be a bedrock of support and community for people across the country as well as overseas, despite navigating unprecedented demand in an increasingly unstable global landscape.'
