Daily Mail, on UK Politics, 24 October 2026

The Daily Mail turns an allegation sourced to unnamed people into established fact: in its own voice, in the headline and the opening line, it calls Rachel Reeves's meetings with City firms "secret", when the only basis it offers is what "the Mail on Sunday understands" from "sources". It then speculates in its own voice that the pair's "insight and knowledge" would be "invaluable" to companies before the Budget, and lets unnamed "critics" suggest the new consultancy helps Reeves "fly under the radar". Conservative quotes fill most of the piece; Reeves says nothing and the article shows no rule actually broken.

6.0

Serious

out of 10

What we found

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “secret meetings with City firms”

    What the words do
    The headline states in the Daily Mail's own voice that the meetings were secret, with no "claimed" or "sources say" attached.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That it is established that Rachel Reeves held meetings she was hiding.
    What is actually the case
    The article's only basis is unnamed people: it says "The Mail on Sunday understands" the meetings happened and attributes what was discussed to "sources with knowledge". Reeves has not answered, and the article points to no requirement that any such meeting be disclosed.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The Mail on Sunday understands Ms Reeves”
    • Elsewhere in the article“Ms Reeves was approached to comment”

    Show it in the article

    “secret meetings with City firms”

    What the words do
    Repeats the word secret as the reporter's own description in the first line of the story, before any sourcing is given to the reader.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That concealment is a fact the paper has established, and the only open question is whether the watchdog will act.
    What is actually the case
    The next two sentences show the account rests entirely on unnamed sources describing meetings; nothing in the piece shows the meetings were concealed from anyone or should have been declared.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Sources with knowledge of the top-level meetings”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Mail on Sunday understands, from sources it does not name, that Rachel Reeves and her former adviser Ben Nunn met two City firms in the past fortnight. The Conservatives have asked the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards to examine whether any rules were broken. Reeves was approached for comment.

  2. Insinuation in the outlet's own voice

    Minor

    “Their combined insight and knowledge could potentially be invaluable to private companies ahead of this week’s Budget.”

    What the words do
    The Daily Mail asserts, in its own voice and with no source, that what Reeves and Nunn know would be invaluable to private firms just before the Budget.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the pair were selling inside knowledge of the Budget to City companies.
    What is actually the case
    The article's own sourcing says only that the meetings covered "the political advice the pair could offer". It reports no information passed, no contract and no finding by any watchdog.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“they discussed the political advice the pair could offer”

    Show it in the article

  3. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “it will look yet again like one rule for Labour MPs and another for everyone else”

    What the words do
    Ends a long block of Conservative quotation with a party attack line, with nothing from Reeves or Labour set against it.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the charge of a double standard stands unanswered because there is no answer.
    What is actually the case
    The article gives the Tory chairman five quoted sentences and the party's letter, while the person accused appears only in the line that she "was approached to comment".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Ms Reeves was approached to comment”

    Show it in the article

Every underline is part of a finding. Press one to see why.

Calls to investigate ex-Chancellor Rachel Reeves over

Tories last night urged the Whitehall sleaze watchdog to investigate Rachel Reeves over amid claims she is poised to quit Parliament to ‘cash in’ on her experience as Chancellor. The Mail on Sunday understands Ms Reeves and her ex-spin doctor Ben Nunn have met two City companies in the last fortnight. Sources with knowledge of the top-level meetings, which came just ahead of this week’s Budget , say they discussed the political advice the pair could offer. They also claimed that chief executives at the meetings had both met Ms Reeves, 47, several times when she was Chancellor. The discussions are said to have included Mr Nunn’s new political advisory firm, Arlington Road Consultants, which he has just launched. The meetings emerged amid suggestions at Westminster that the Leeds West MP will soon follow the example of ex-PM Sir Keir Starmer and resign her Commons seat. However, strict Whitehall rules limit what work former Ministers can do once they leave office to ‘counter suspicion’ that when still in office, they might be influenced by the expectation of future employment . Until July when Ms Reeves was sacked by incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Nunn was her most senior adviser at the Treasury. Tories urged the Whitehall watchdog to probe Rachel Reeves over secret meetings with City firms amid claims she is poised to quit Parliament to ‘cash in’ on her experience as Chancellor Last night, the Tories challenged Ms Reeves to ‘come clean’ about the meetings and called on Whitehall’s sleaze watchdog to investigate any potential breaches. In a letter to Sir Laurie Magnus, Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake said: ‘The Rules are clear that former ministers must never draw on, or disclose for the benefit of others, privileged information gained in office’ – including contacts.' As a Special Adviser, Mr Nunn – who was previously a senior advisor to Sir Keir Starmer as Opposition Leader - is also subject to similar ‘Business Appointment Rules’ on divulging information to businesses. Both he and Ms Reeves are both banned from lobbying government for two years. Last night, Mr Hollinrake urged the ex-Chancellor to comply with the requirement of ex-Ministers to seek advice from the Independent Adviser before taking up new private work for two years after leaving office. He told the Mail on Sunday: ‘If Rachel Reeves has been meeting City firms with her former adviser to drum up business days before a Budget she spent months preparing, that would be a scandalous breach of very clear rules. ‘The Business Appointment Rules apply to every former minister. They exist to stop precisely this kind of use of privileged information, and the perception that it is being used. ‘Rachel Reeves must come clean and explain what she has been up to. If she does not, .’ Mr Nunn’s new consultancy is named after the ‘Arlington Road’ group of Labour plotters who sought to oust Jeremy Corbyn and install Sir Keir as his replacement. He is the sole director of the company which critics have suggested helps the former Chancellor to ‘fly under the radar’ in any approaches to City firms. Last year’s Budget, which he and Ms Reeves oversaw, was branded a ‘fiasco’ by critics after it was preceded by weeks of chaotic leaks and public confusion. It was nicknamed the ‘hokey cokey Budget’, after major tax rises and spending cuts were leaked by insiders, debated, and then ultimately dropped or reversed. Her successor John Healey has been cautious to avoid such briefings this year, preferring instead to play down speculation around this Wednesday’s Statement. Ms Reeves was approached to comment on the meetings. Mr Nunn declined to comment.

Read the original article on dailymail.com (opens in a new tab)

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Daily Mail

  1. 25 OctThe TikTok hate preacher: Terrorist's 'highly toxic' social media rants 'target 11 to 15-year-olds online'3.0
  2. 25 OctBBC must 'pay £400,000 to Oscar-winning Jewish producer after she became victim of anti-Semitism and was bullied out of the broadcaster'7.3
  3. 25 OctLabour MP said he 'feared the worst' during angry confrontation with constituent which left him thinking of murdered parliamentary colleagues including Jo Cox3.0
  4. 24 OctBBC education website used by millions takes down Leftist views after pushing 'extreme views' on migration and Net Zero6.0
  5. 24 OctANDREW GRIFFITH: Healey must quit this job too if he fails to ramp up defence spending0.0

Everything we scored from Daily Mail