It is easy to get lost in the personalities and noise of a political scandal like this. Names, timelines, who said what to whom. The media, mainstream and social, loves that level of detail because it keeps the story moving.
But it rarely answers the question that matters most: what, exactly, has to change so this is less likely to happen again?
That’s why I listened to Amol Rajan's interview with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday morning. Not because he had anything new to add to the Peter Mandelson intrigue, but because he kept dragging the conversation back to the system. Back to the machinery of power, influence, and the gaps where accountability should be.
TL;DR
- Gordon Brown frames the problem as “the abuse of power” enabled by “a lack of transparency” and a permissive political culture.
- His proposals are practical: public hearings for senior appointments, an anti-corruption commission with teeth, statutory ethics powers (including financial checks), lobbying reform (especially around the House of Lords), and a ban on most MPs’ second jobs.
- He argues for urgency and a joined-up reform bill – because, in his view, delay simply entrenches the status quo.
Brown's language is blunt. He calls it “the abuse of power”. He talks about “the systematic abuse of power” and “a lack of transparency in the system”. Then he goes one step further: “It’s the culture here… cultures can change, and it’s our job to change the culture.”
That lands. If the culture is the problem, “a few tweaks” is not a serious response.
What follows is Brown’s reform agenda – in plain terms, and focused on what he says needs to happen now.
1) Make senior appointments publicly accountable
Brown argues there is “a systemic failure” in vetting. His fix is public scrutiny: “what should be public… hearings for anybody… in a senior position”.
He’s not talking about performative theatre. He’s talking about daylight. The ability for “people [to] ask the questions” before decisions are locked in and consequences are unavoidable.
This is persuasive because it turns appointments into what they should be: a public trust transaction, not a private favour.
It would also make politics less convenient. Which, frankly, might be the point.
2) Create an anti-corruption body with real enforcement power
Brown calls for “an anti-corruption commission” with powers “to seize assets” and “to root out corruption proactively”. He adds a line that feels like a summary of the last decade: “You need someone with the powers to act.”
That phrase – powers to act – is doing a lot of work. It draws a bright line between ethics as talk and ethics as enforcement.
3) Put ethics oversight on a statutory footing, including financial checks
Brown wants ethics oversight with “statutory powers”. He mentions one specific capability: “to check bank accounts”.
This is the sort of proposal that will make some people bristle. It sounds intrusive. It will be described as heavy-handed.
But Brown’s point is about credibility. If there is “some question mark” and you don’t check properly, he calls that “completely unacceptable”.
4) Clamp down on lobbying, starting with the House of Lords
Brown doesn’t treat lobbying as an unfortunate background noise. He treats it as a key route around accountability. “Lobbying is one of the most egregious things that has got to be dealt with.”
He points directly at the House of Lords:
There are 91 people who are giving political advice for payment in the House of Lords. So these are the legislators who are getting money to pay to advise those who are trying to stop legislation. There are 50 people in the House of Lords who are lobbyists. It's a completely unacceptable situation, and it's got to be dealt with immediately. It's like 'a rotten borough of 91.' People who are able to influence legislation, at the same time voting on the things that they're trying to stop.
Brown’s point is that the Lords has become a structural loophole – where paid influence and legislative power can sit uncomfortably close together. Whether you agree with every detail, the underlying argument is difficult to dismiss: when access is for sale, opacity becomes a business model.
And once that is normalised, the public has every reason to assume decisions are being shaped by whoever can pay to be in the room.
5) Ban most MPs’ second jobs, with narrow exceptions
Brown asks: “Do we need a total ban on MPs’ second jobs?… I believe so…” while allowing for narrow exceptions – for example, doctors maintaining practice to keep skills and accreditation current.
Brown called for such a ban in 2022.
This is one of those reforms that always seems obvious from the outside and complicated from the inside. It is where vested interests and “reasonable explanations” tend to flourish.
Brown ties it back to the MPs’ expenses scandal in 2009, which is telling. We remember that scandal because it marked a moment when trust broke publicly. And we also remember how quickly politics moved on.
He says:
I'm not criticising the vast majority of members of the House of Lords or MPs. They're public servants who want to serve the public, but they are brought down by the behaviour of people who use positions of power purely for financial gain, and in some cases for sexual gratification, who are abusing the system, who are making a mockery of what should be a dignified public service.
This time, Brown seems to be saying, moving on is the risk.
6) Do it quickly, and do it as one joined-up package
Brown’s urgency is striking. He says reforms “could be done within weeks” and argues for “a comprehensive bill to deal with corruption, ethics, lobbying, and secrecy”.
He also warns: “If we don’t do that in the next few months, we will pay a heavy price.”
And then the big ambition: “Britain must become the most transparent, the least corrupt political system in the world.”
That is an enormous claim. I’m not sure any country can honestly make it. But I do understand why he says it. Because if you set the bar at “slightly better than before”, you guarantee disappointment.
The uncomfortable truth: reform means making politics less convenient
The common thread in Brown’s proposals is not moralising. It is friction.
- Public hearings slow down cosy appointments.
- Statutory powers make ethics enforcement harder to ignore.
- Tougher lobbying rules disrupt quiet influence.
- A second-jobs ban closes a door that many people prefer left ajar.
- An anti-corruption commission raises the personal risk of unethical behaviour.
None of this creates perfection. But it does change incentives. And incentives are what shape culture.
If Brown is right that “it’s the culture here” that needs to change, then the real test is simple:
Scandals come and go. The deeper issue is what we normalise in between them.
Brown’s intervention matters because it is specific. It is not just “we need higher standards”. It is a set of changes that would force higher standards.
So I’ll end with a question rather than a conclusion:
Is this the moment when Britain finally treats political integrity as infrastructure – or will it become another episode that produces heat, noise, and a short memory?
Sources:
- Interview with Gordon Brown on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, 7 February 2026
- Mandelson scandal is 'serious' for Starmer but PM is 'man of integrity', Brown says (BBC News, 7 February 2026)
- Gordon Brown: We owe it to Epstein’s victims and to British democracy to demand historic change (The Guardian, 6 February 2026)
