Gabriel Pogrund

Gabriel broke the stories which sparked the first political crisis of Keir Starmer’s administration - and a national conversation about the relationship between money and politics.

The first was the revelation that Lord Alli, Starmer’s biggest personal donor, had an access-all-areas pass to No10 - and had used it to host a reception in the Downing St garden attended by others who had bankrolled the election campaign; the second that the PM had broken the rules by failing to report that his wife, Victoria, had accepted clothing from the millionaire. The revelations had instant impact, dominating the front pages of every national newspaper and broadcast news. They were quickly followed by other disclosures about Alli’s influence over appointments, his largesse and the conduct of other ministers.

Yet the impact went deeper still. Before long, Gabriel’s reporting had exposed a gulf between the public and political class as to what is acceptable - one which the prime minister, who had vowed to “clean up” politics, and a striking number of his cabinet colleagues failed at first to appreciate. It also persuaded the government to change the rules on ministerial gifts and hospitality; forced the PM, deputy PM and the chancellor to commit to change their own conduct; and led Starmer to repay thousands in donations he knew he could no longer justify.

The reporting, executed, like Gabriel's previous work on Tory sleaze, without fear or favour, ended up overshadowing Labour’s first conference in government in 2009. That exposed a dysfunction at the heart of government - and posed questions about Starmer’s own leadership, He resolved them by reluctantly reorganising his No10 operation. Even then, it was only the budget, after a months-long drip drip of allegations touching on clothes, suits, glasses, birthday parties, concert tickets and luxury penthouses, that the PM managed to draw a line under the matter.

Few would have foreseen the so-called donor-gate/freebie-gate/passes-for-glasses scandal so hot on the heels of the election. Yet that is precisely why the story had such impact inside Westminster and further afield: it defied expectations, changed perceptions, and serves as an example of the impact that only journalism can deliver.