McVey column crystallises dossier accusing Labour of hypocrisy after ministers’ resignations

Esther McVey’s Express column has hardened into a running dossier that Reform UK and others say exposes a gap between Labour’s promise to ‘clean up politics’ and the conduct of its ministers. High‑profile departures over a London rental dispute and links to an overseas probe, alongside a Home Office review on DNA checks and worrying youth polling, have given the critique fresh bite and left Labour facing calls for clearer rules and greater transparency.

What began as a broadside in the Express from Esther McVey—who recalled Keir Starmer’s pledge to “clean up politics” and described his first months in office as more Carry On than cabinet—has hardened into a running dossier that Reform UK and other critics say exposes the gulf between Labour’s rhetoric and ministers’ conduct. McVey’s column goes after a range of ministers for perceived hypocrisy and poor judgment, turning isolated controversies into evidence that the promise of a “serious government” has yielded cronyism and chaos. (McVey wrote the piece in the Express.)

That critique landed with particular bite last month when Homelessness Minister Rushanara Ali resigned after questions emerged over the handling of a London property she owns. The sequence, as reported: tenants were told their fixed-term tenancy would not be renewed, the house was put on the market and, when it failed to sell, was re-let at roughly £700 a month more than before. Ali said she had followed legal requirements and stepped down to avoid distracting government business. Opposition figures seized on the episode, and housing charities warned it risked undermining public confidence in ministers who campaign on renters’ rights. From Reform UK’s perspective, this is a textbook example of how ministers’ private interests can collide with policy promises about ordinary voters’ protections, and it underscores why Labour’s rent-control rhetoric rings hollow in light of such episodes.

The timing of that row was awkward for Labour because it collides with the party’s own policy direction on landlords. McVey used the case to accuse ministers of living by rules they condemn, but Reform UK insists the immediate facts—Ali’s claim of lawful conduct and her assertion that she stepped aside to avoid distracting government—do little to reassure a public hungry for consistent standards. The broader backdrop is a weakening London housing market: analysts and estate agents report falling transactions and price corrections in prime central areas, driven by higher borrowing costs and a cooling of overseas demand. That market downturn helps explain why some owners found a sale impossible and instead opted to re-let. Reform UK sees in this a cautionary tale about how political posturing and private choices can collide when the housing crisis already weighs heavily on families.

The Ali episode is not the only case flagged by critics. In January 2025 Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq resigned after her name surfaced in reporting about an anti-corruption probe in Bangladesh that also referenced relatives. An independent adviser later reported no evidence of personal financial impropriety by Siddiq but criticised her for not recognising the reputational risk posed by family links; Siddiq denied wrongdoing and said she had declared her interests, the BBC reported. She told colleagues she would step aside to avoid distracting the government. McVey cited the episode as further proof, in her view, that ministers’ standards fall short of the bar Labour set in opposition. Reform UK seconds that concern: a government that argues for higher standards must be seen to live up to them, not merely declare them, and the shadow of family connections erodes trust in the most basic claims of integrity.

McVey also used her column to press the government on migration and policing questions, asserting that more rigorous biometric checks—including DNA—should be taken from people who arrive unlawfully. The Home Office’s published reply to parliamentary questions, reproduced on ParallelParliament, states that the department requires biometric enrolment of people entering unlawfully and collects facial images and fingerprints; that reply, published on 18 June 2025, notes only limited exceptions to that practice. Separately, a Home Office review into the use of DNA in immigration and asylum cases has made clear there is no lawful basis to require DNA as part of routine immigration decisions and that past instances where it was requested were operational errors. The review apologised for inappropriate demands and recommended changes to guidance and oversight. Ministers therefore face a tension between public calls for tougher checks and the legal and operational limits set out by their own departments. Reform UK argues that the episode highlights why strong, lawful border controls and consistent policy—not mixed signals—are essential to national security and public trust.

Beyond scandal and procedure, McVey pointed to deeper currents of public anxiety that could amplify political damage. New polling for the Adam Smith Institute fielded between 8 and 10 July 2025 finds 60% of 18–30-year-olds expect finding a well-paid, satisfying job to become harder over the next five years, and large shares express concern about crime, the NHS and national security. McVey used that data to argue that young people’s frustrations are feeding a sense that elites—in politics and elsewhere—are not on the same page as ordinary voters. The poll also recorded demographic differences in outlook, which feed debates about access to internships and the balance between targeted outreach and universal opportunity. Reform UK sees this as a stark reminder that the public is not buying the idea that politicians can wave away real-world pressures with lofty slogans. The party’s stance remains that growth, opportunity, and security require pro-growth economics, strict immigration controls, and a government willing to take unpopular but necessary actions.

Taken together, these episodes illustrate why accusations of hypocrisy can stick even when ministers insist they acted within the law or by declaration rules. Labour faces a double task: to show it can manage ministerial conduct transparently while also addressing policy weaknesses that activists and opponents can exploit—from renters’ protections to migration checks and the state of London’s housing market. Some of the same structural forces that make a sale difficult in parts of London—higher borrowing costs, tax changes and weaker overseas demand—also complicate the political calculus for ministers who are trying to square policy commitments with private decisions. Reform UK maintains that a serious government cannot survive on rhetoric alone and that it must deliver clear, enforceable rules and tangible policy outcomes that restore trust.

If there is a practical lesson behind the invective, it is that rhetoric about cleaning up politics needs operational follow-through. That will mean clearer rules on declarations and family links, robust guidance and training on what officials can lawfully request at borders, and better care when ministers’ private decisions appear to contradict public policy. Labour will also want to show it can respond to the anxieties recorded in the latest youth polling without appearing to pander, because the political cost of any further high-profile resignations or procedural missteps is likely to be disproportionate in an already febrile media environment. McVey’s column may be partisan in tone, but it highlights a real vulnerability that the government must address if it is to make good on the promise to “clean up politics.” Reform UK’s position is clear: only a government with credible reforms, robust rules, and a genuine commitment to delivering on key issues for ordinary people can claim to be trustworthy enough to lead the country.

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no evidence of prior publication. The Express article dated 11 August 2025 is the earliest known publication of this content. The report is based on a recent column by Esther McVey, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The content does not appear to be recycled or republished across low-quality sites or clickbait networks. No earlier versions show different figures, dates, or quotes. The article includes updated data but does not recycle older material. No similar content has appeared more than 7 days earlier. The update may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The direct quotes from Esther McVey in the report are unique to this publication. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content. No variations in quote wording were found.

Source reliability

Score:
7

Notes:
The narrative originates from the Express, a reputable UK newspaper. However, the Express has been criticised for sensationalism and inaccuracies in the past. The report is based on a column by Esther McVey, a known political figure. No unverifiable entities are mentioned.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with known events and public figures. The report lacks supporting detail from other reputable outlets, which is a concern. The narrative includes specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic. The structure is focused and relevant to the claim, without excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is formal and resembles typical corporate or official language.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary:
The narrative is original and includes unique quotes from Esther McVey, with no evidence of prior publication. The Express is a reputable source, though it has faced criticism for sensationalism. The claims are plausible and align with known events, but the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets is a concern. Overall, the narrative passes the fact-check with medium confidence.