The recent wave of violent protests that swept across Britain may be waning, but the underlying issues fueling the unrest remain largely unaddressed. Even the hundreds of timely arrests and the stiff sentences that followed cannot obscure the profound cracks that have been exposed in the country’s foundations.

Too many communities remain without productive work. The nation struggles to manage both legal and illegal immigration. The health system is stretched to its limits. The public’s frustration has become palpable, as evidenced by the Conservative Party’s historic defeat in the July election—a loss driven by a widespread perception of governmental incompetence that sent voters fleeing in droves.

While these systemic failures were not the direct cause of the riots—the immediate spark was misinformation about the identity of the man who committed the horrific murders of three young girls in Southport—they are the problems that must be resolved if we are to prevent future unrest. This moment calls for decisive leadership from our politicians.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s leadership during the riots stood in stark contrast to the indecisive responses of David Cameron and Boris Johnson during the last major wave of civil unrest in 2011 following the killing of Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan Police. At that time, both Cameron and Johnson were caught vacationing, taking days to respond. In contrast, Starmer, alongside the justice system, responded with impressive speed and precision.

The memory of Duggan and the Tottenham riots brings to mind another monumental failure in British public life: the 2009 expenses scandal. During that debacle, scores of politicians were exposed for exploiting public funds for personal gain, while the rest of us grappled with the global financial crisis and feared for our jobs. Trust in public figures plummeted.

This erosion of trust has only deepened in the years since, as story after story has emerged of politicians saying one thing and doing another, whether on Brexit or during the COVID lockdown parties (cough: Boris Johnson). This brings us to Chris Philp, the MP and former policing minister, who was the subject of a recent discussion I had with tax lawyers (more on their insights later).

In a different era, the recent riots would have been of great interest to Philp, the MP for South Croydon. He would have been at the forefront of the government’s response to the disorder on Britain’s streets. Now, he’s just another bystander like the rest of us.

But that doesn’t mean Philp’s life has been devoid of intrigue. He managed to survive the Conservative cull despite representing a London-adjacent seat. Moreover, he weathered a high-profile Guardian story detailing a murky legal dispute involving his wife Elizabeth’s pharmaceutical company, in which he has a financial interest.

The crux of the dispute is this: In 2017, Elizabeth Philp left her position as CEO of Gluck Health to establish Roseway Labs, a competing business offering “compounded” treatments for hormonal imbalances. She was joined by other former Gluck employees, including her current business partner, Miriam Martinez-Callelas. It’s alleged—but not proven—that Philp took proprietary material, including contact lists from her former employer’s laptop, to help build her new venture. Marion Gluck, the founder of Gluck Health, claims this resulted in a loss of approximately £1.5 million. Philp denies the allegation and is counter-suing, having previously won a judgment against Gluck in another matter.

So, what does this have to do with Chris Philp?

This brings us back to the tax lawyers. Galenic Laboratories, trading as Roseway Labs, conducted a fundraising round in May 2018, structured as an Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), which offers certain tax advantages to investors, notably a 30% tax deduction on the investment amount. However, this deduction isn’t universally available. If, for example, your spouse is an investor in the business and holds more than 30% of the shares, you are ineligible for the tax relief.

According to Companies House records, Elizabeth Philp held a 36% stake in Galenic at the time of the May 2018 fundraising, which would have made her husband ineligible for EIS relief as an investor. However, the new shares were issued in two tranches: 21,799 shares on May 15, 2018, followed by another 36,355 shares a week later on May 22, 2018. Doing the math, the first tranche would have reduced Elizabeth Philp’s shareholding below 30%, making her husband eligible for his 15% tax relief—if, that is, his 7,000+ shares were purchased in the second tranche. However, the public records don’t disclose which tranche they were purchased in. Nor are we likely to ever know. Nor do we know why the share issuance was staged a week apart instead of all at once. It’s all opaque. The tax lawyers have their theories, but I won’t indulge in speculation here.

To be clear, unlike the Gluck claim against Elizabeth Philp, there is absolutely no allegation or proof of any wrongdoing against Chris Philp. But this is the point: Politicians need to understand that in an era of zero trust in our leaders and increasing social discord, they—especially those in leadership positions like Philp, now serving as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons—must be not only compliant with the law but seen to be so. There can be no grey areas. No room for innuendo. Not anymore. If I were Philp, I would clear up any misperceptions.

At a time when the state needs every bit of tax revenue it can collect to fix our broken public services, anyone who skirts their obligation to the taxman—in whatever form—can be considered part of the problem, not someone fit to deliberate over the solutions.