Color Scheme
Alex Wickham
17, April

Alex Wickham: EXCLUSIVE…

EXCLUSIVE: A team of Cabinet Office officials accessed a highly secure portal last Friday to review UK Security Vetting conclusions on Peter Mandelson as part of the Humble Address motion. What they found was conclusions of a top secret report showing security officials had raised objections about Mandelson’s appointment. On making further enquiries it then became clear to them that Olly Robbins had been presented with the conclusions of the UKSV process by a senior Foreign Office security official who Bloomberg has agreed not to name. It appeared Robbins had not necessarily seen the full details of Mandelson’s vetting, only the conclusions and what are internally called “residual issues”, sources say. Nonetheless, Robbins and the senior FCDO security official had agreed that despite the negative conclusions they would go ahead and grant him DV clearance, sources say. The senior FCDO security official has since left the Foreign Office. It means the government was left in an extraordinary situation this week where not a single member of staff still in post at FCDO had seen Mandelson’s full vetting report. When Starmer found out on Tuesday he was furious and then on Thursday sacked Robbins. A source described the situation as so opaque it was Kafkaesque. However an ally of Robbins points to the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which states that ministers do not have powers over national security vetting. People familiar with the matter who spoke to Bloomberg today described an internal mess bordering on farce. The crux of the problem, some sources argue, is that Starmer had made clear he wanted Mandelson to be appointed and that he was relaxed about the publicly available information about his links to Epstein, Russia and China. That created a climate in which Robbins felt he was doing the PM’s bidding by clearing Mandelson. Ironically, Robbins’ defence against Starmer’s decision to sack him also appears to help the PM because it tallies with Starmer’s position that he was unaware of Mandelson’s vetting issues and therefore could not have intervened. Cabinet ministers are tonight reserving judgment on whether Starmer can survive this. First he needs to get through next week, then the locals. Most political sources we spoke to think Starmer can tough it out to the locals, but think it will factor into ministers’ and MPs’ calculations afterwards.
Alex Wickham: EXCLUSIVE…
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2045201885859393935
Alex Wickham
30, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: Keir Starmer speech on wave...

New: Keir Starmer speech on wave of antisemitic attacks in Britain - says will look at measures to prevent chants such as ‘globalise the intifada’ on marches, and look at repeat protests - condemns people who attend protests alongside those calling for the murder of Jews - says will fast track legislation to give the government stronger powers to tackle threats from states like Iran - says will introduce stronger powers to shut down charities that promote antisemitic extremism - says will speed up sentencing on antisemitic attacks so there is a stronger deterrence - says will bar hate preachers from the country, campuses and streets
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
30, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: Keir Starmer speech on wave...

New: Keir Starmer speech on wave of antisemitic attacks in Britain - says will look at measures to prevent chants such as ‘globalise the intifada’ on marches, and look at repeat protests - condemns people who attend protests alongside those calling for the murder of Jews - says will fast track legislation to give the government stronger powers to tackle threats from states like Iran - says will introduce stronger powers to shut down charities that promote antisemitic extremism - says will speed up sentencing on antisemitic attacks so there is a stronger deterrence - says will bar hate preachers from the country, campuses and streets
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
29, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: EXCLUSIVE…

EXCLUSIVE: Andy Burnham says Labour must take a “different course” after the local elections. He declines to back Keir Starmer staying on, signals he’ll make another run for Parliament and argues defence spending should be taken out of the fiscal rules to fund a rise through borrowing. “It’s got to be a moment of reflection,” Burnham says in a Bloomberg interview today, warning the results will be “challenging.” He says in the aftermath it means “starting to now pull through on a different course.” “I understand the real frustration people have got with politics and politicians. I honestly, I really understand that. And they’re right to say politics just hasn’t been working,” the Greater Manchester Mayor tells @flacqua . Burnham makes clear he intends to run again for Parliament. “The politics we’ve pioneered as mayors: place first, not party first — that needs to go national, and so we do need to reform Westminster. I can’t remove the kind of feeling that someday I will try and go back. I’m not ruling it out.” Asked if Starmer should stay after May 7, Burnham declines to answer. Instead he says the PM deserves more “credit” for the job he’s done. And he suggests defence spending should be taken out of the fiscal rules in what would be a major change to UK policy to fund an increase in defence spending through borrowing. While he suggests the fiscal rules “will stay in any context,” he says “there’s certainly a case, when we look at the pressure on defence spending, to consider that exceptionally outside of the rules.”
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
28, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: Keir Starmer end-day analysis…

Keir Starmer end-day analysis: he is wounded from the last two weeks but limps on to face his fate after the locals. — The PM finished the day in a better place than he started it. He got a rare victory winning tonight’s Commons vote with minimal rebellion. If he had lost it would have been close to game over. But No10 won the argument with Labour MPs that this was a political stunt from the Tories. Labour MPs decided to keep their problems in-house rather than give Kemi Badenoch the win. — Downing Street is relieved that what threatened to be a perilous Tuesday didn’t do much serious new damage. The sessions with Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney ended without a killer blow. When it comes to the process on Starmer versus Olly Robbins, after hours and hours of testimony from all the key witnesses, there are arguments on both sides and no clear winner, maybe just two losers. — Philip Barton’s evidence was uncomfortable for No10 but his crucial caveat that he was not put under pressure over the substance of Mandelson’s appointment process gave the PM something of a reprieve. It could have been much worse for No10. — That means after two weeks of intense scrutiny on Mandelson, he has survived until the next flashpoint after the locals. As Bloomberg reported on Saturday, Starmer’s rivals think they need a ‘perfect storm’ of events to bring him down including an ‘emotional’ response from MPs to May 7 leading to a cabinet revolt. It remains unclear if Labour MPs have the stomach or plan to change leader now. It all comes down to the days after the vote. — Starmer will seek to move past the Mandelson scandal with a renewed focus on security, in terms of Britain’s defence, economy and energy supply as we reported a few weeks ago. He is planning a series of speeches and policy interventions on those topics.
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
27, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: Keir Starmer state of play ahead of a big Tuesday…

Keir Starmer state of play ahead of a big Tuesday - The PM’s allies, Labour MPs and the Tories all think Starmer will win tomorrow’s vote and Parliament will reject a privileges probe. - Starmer’s allies think they have won the argument that the timing of the vote by the Tories is politically motivated ahead of the locals. - Big beasts like Gordon Brown coming out to say as such have helped No10. Foreign affairs select committee chair Emily Thornberry agrees. Starmer’s rivals like Angela Rayner are remaining loyal. It sounds like PLP tonight was largely supportive with only a couple of left-wing dissenters. - Tory HQ think it’s a win-win for them. They don’t dispute this was a political move. Conservative officials say if Labour MPs vote with Starmer then the Tories will point that out to voters on the doorstep ahead of May 7. - The danger for Starmer comes at 9am when Philip Barton appears in front of FASC. He is expected back up Olly Robbins and Ian Collard and say No10 did put pressure on the foreign office re Mandelson. If he produces bombshell evidence of serious pressure then that could produce a case that Starmer misled Parliament. You’d expect Morgan McSweeney will deny any pressuring when he testifies at 11am. - But what it may come down to is your definition of pressure. Starmer argued to @joshglancy in the Sunday Times that there are normal pressures of the job, such as getting things done quickly. What he is denying is that No10 pressured FCDO to approve Mandelson against due process. Robbins and Collard both say pressure didn’t affect their decisions, so sort of agree. Will Barton? - Remarkably Collard says in his evidence to FASC tonight that he too didn’t see the UKSV form with boxes ticked against recommending Mandelson get clearance. That means the two key decision-makers, Collard and Robbins, didn’t see the key document and instead decided among themselves that they could mitigate the Mandelson concerns. - Nearly two weeks on from the Guardian story, who is right and wrong on the process remains unclear. No10 will still argue FCDO failed to share the UKSV concerns with them and shouldn’t have tried to cook it up among themselves. Robbins essentially argues it’s all been a big misunderstanding, that Mandelson’s vetting problems were resolvable and he shouldn’t have been sacked. As Thornberry suggested after his evidence last week, it could be that there was fault on all sides.
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
25, April #StarmerCrisis

Alex Wickham: NEW: Bloomberg Saturday read…

NEW: Bloomberg Saturday read — Will Keir Starmer survive? His rivals say it’ll take a perfect storm of disastrous events happening in quick succession for the PM to be ousted next month: more Mandelson revelations, an “emotional” response by MPs to the locals, and a cabinet revolt. — The first seems possible. Philip Barton is expected to back up Olly Robbins on Tuesday. The key is if he can produce evidence No10 did pressure the foreign office. Then Starmer will be accused of misleading parliament. In theory he could be called to the privileges committee. — Some in govt also suspect there is more to emerge about how Mandelson conducted himself as ambassador that could come out either in leaks to the media or humble address disclosures. Starmer is so badly wounded that any further revelations could take him into resignation territory. — The second factor his opponents say is needed is what they call an “emotional” reaction by MPs after the local elections. It is priced in that Labour will lose upwards of 2,000 councillors. A sober response might see MPs say local election results are not a reason to change a PM, or at least wait until an obvious successor emerges. A more emotional one, triggered by the sight of so many lifelong local colleagues losing their jobs, could see MPs beyond the usual suspects come out and call for Starmer to go. If that coincided with more Mandelson revelations, momentum may build in the days after May 7. — If it really builds, it could spread to the cabinet. That’s the third factor seen as required to oust the PM. Most think it will ultimately fall on cabinet ministers to tell him his time is up. If one-by-one enough do, not just one or two but enough that Starmer finds it impossible to form a government, he’d have to agree to step down pending the result of a leadership contest. — While rival camps are gaming all this out, for most MPs who spoke to Bloomberg this week it is not their base case. Most still seem to think the lack of a credible plan to replace Starmer means he will get through May. — The issues are well-versed. The left don’t like Wes Streeting. The right don’t like Angela Rayner, whose tax issues are ongoing. Neither has a policy platform. Neither poll well. A contest between them would be deeply divisive and whoever wins will have no mandate from the public. Farage’s calls for an early general election would be hard to argue against. Voters will see Labour as the Tories 2.0. — Some on the left want to wait for Andy Burnham. They think he will make clear in the aftermath of May 7 that he wants to stand for parliament again and that Starmer won’t be able to block him this time. He at least polls better than the others. But some say he isn’t as popular with MPs as people think. And who knows how long it’ll take him to make it to Westminster. — That all leads many MPs to conclude the most likely scenario is still that Starmer muddles on through May. But it leaves Labour in a bleak position of their own making: stuck with a PM few really back, who they brief against constantly, but they don’t have a plan to replace. @Joe_Mayes
#StarmerCrisis
Alex Wickham
21, April

Alex Wickham: Olly Robbins’ evidence and where it leaves Keir Starmer…

Olly Robbins’ evidence and where it leaves Keir Starmer — The top line of Robbins’ testimony is damning and on the worse end of expectations for the prime minister. He accused Downing Street of having a “dismissive approach” to vetting and creating an “atmosphere of pressure” by pressing ahead with the appointment and announcement before vetting had been completed. That is strong language that Starmer will have to answer. — Robbins directed his criticism at the PM’s private office, accusing them of putting his team under “constant pressure” to “get it done” with “an atmosphere of constant chasing.” The Cabinet Office had argued Mandelson didn’t even need to be vetted, he said. He didn’t name them but his testimony puts scrutiny on the PM’s then principal private secretary Nin Pandit and his PPS for foreign affairs Alisa Terry. — In a further revelation, he said No10 pushed for Starmer’s former communications chief Matthew Doyle to be found an ambassadorial role. Doyle has since been suspended from Labour over his links to a sex offender. — However, there were several complicating factors to Robbins’ evidence which exacerbate the mess of the last week. He said there have been a series of misunderstandings about what had gone on. — Robbins confirmed he did not tell the PM, then cabinet secretary Chris Wormald or then chief of staff Morgan McSweeney about the issues with Mandelson’s vetting. That clears Starmer of the original main charge from opponents that he knew what had gone on and lied. Robbins insists he was bound by confidentiality rules governing the UKSV process not to tell anyone. — Robbins also laid out a different series of events surrounding Mandelson’s vetting. He said in fact Mandelson did not “fail” his UK Security Vetting process, and neither did security officials make a firm recommendation against the appointment. Instead, he says UKSV were leaning against recommending that Mandelson get clearance. Robbins and the FCDO security team were then able to put mitigations in place to clear Mandelson for Developed Vetting, he said. He argued that was appropriate and followed the correct process. — Robbins said that despite the pressure he felt from No10, it did not impact the FCDO’s decision to approve clearance for Mandelson. He stood by that decision and implied he would make the same judgment again. He suggested Starmer could have cancelled the appointment once the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics due diligence report threw up publicly known issues with Mandelson, but that there was no reason to deny him clearance. Essentially he sought to downplay the whole furore about Mandelson’s vetting issues and his own role and decisions. — So in conclusion Robbins’ evidence is he came under pressure from No10 to “get it done,” clearly not “due process,” yet in terms of his own decision to approve clearance for Mandelson, due process was followed. That leaves a complete mess that is extremely damaging for the government and for Labour MPs to weigh as they consider Starmer’s future.
Alex Wickham
21, April

Alex Wickham: Keir Starmer state of play tonight…

Keir Starmer state of play tonight: A brutal 48 hours leaves the PM weaker than ever, but he stays for now. Process aside, Labour MPs are ultimately weighing the bigger question: is the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson reason enough to cost Starmer his job and plunge Britain into a new period of political chaos? Most Labour MPs, ministers and aides who spoke to Bloomberg say they don’t think there will be a move against Starmer before May 7. But they warn the scandal increases the chance of a challenge afterwards and sinks his hopes of using Iran to rejuvenate his premiership. One MP says the events of this week leave Starmer suspended above an elephant trap. There has been no knockout blow, yet, though any further revelations could deliver one, they say. The government is concerned that fresh Mandelson developments could emerge in the coming days and weeks which might push Starmer over the edge. Another tranche of internal documents is expected to be published after the local elections at the moment of maximum danger. However, another MP argues that while the Robbins’ testimony was damning, the facts surrounding Mandelson’s vetting remain extremely complicated and too messy to be used as a reason to move against him. While there is no doubt Starmer made a terrible political error in appointing Mandelson, after the last two days it isn’t clear cut who between No10 and Robbins is right when it comes to his vetting, they say. And then there is the crucial problem of timing. Wes Streeting and Angela Rayner don’t want to blow up the government two weeks before Labour councillors try to keep their seats, MPs say. Rayner backs Starmer tonight, saying there are “more important questions” than the Mandelson process row. Allies suggest she does not want to be the one who wields the knife and she still hasn’t resolved her tax problems. Supporters of Streeting on the right of the Labour Party are wary that Rayner would likely be the favourite in a contest right now, perhaps dissuading him from moving. And some MPs on the left prefer Andy Burnham as their choice of successor to Rayner, meaning they are inclined to wait until he gets to Parliament. No-one is confident they’d get the successor they want and everyone fears a messy and protracted contest, one of the MPs says. So despite the Mandelson mess, Starmer stays for now. With @Joe_Mayes
Alex Wickham
17, April

Alex Wickham: BREAKING…

BREAKING: Sources say Olly Robbins felt bound by the rules of the security vetting process NOT to tell the PM, No10 or the foreign secretary about the concerns raised about Mandelson That means it appears No10 WERE in fact unaware he had issues with his vetting And sources say in fact Mandelson DID NOT simply fail his vetting. Instead issues were raised and the FCDO security team and ultimately Robbins had to make a decision on whether to grant him DV clearance. It was their decision and there was no “overturning,” sources say As @SamCoatesSky reports via former security official Ciaran Martin, Robbins was prohibited from sharing information about what happened with anyone outside the FCDO security team Sources say the point of the vetting process is that it is extremely invasive and people who go through it must be confident they can tell the whole truth and not have highly embarrassing information about their personal lives leak or be spread around colleagues That means the circle of people allowed to know about what happens in each vetting case is very small and the information is highly privileged The decision on whether to approve Mandelson’s clearance, according to the vetting rules, is taken by a small team of FCDO security officials and ultimately Robbins, sources say Under no circumstance is Robbins or that team able to share the details of the vetting case with No10 or anyone else, sources say. Robbins felt he could not share it with any minister or private office, sources say It appears the PM and No10 were unaware of how these rules were perceived by Robbins and FCDO, and think he should have told them. Allies of Robbins think it is unfair he was sacked But crucially it appears right now that Robbins did not tell No10 and they were actually in the dark about all this until Tuesday. What an unbelievable mess
Alex Wickham
16, April

Alex Wickham: Exclusive: Iran Has Limited the Impact…

Exclusive: Iran Has Limited the Impact of US Strikes, Intelligence Says Pre-war planning meant Iran’s military was able to mitigate the impact of US-Israeli strikes on its weapons arsenal and leadership, according to Western military intelligence assessments — which also say it retains the ability to respond if the ceasefire fails. Tehran has sustained massive damage to its infrastructure and its most senior leaders have been killed. But operational planning undertaken in anticipation of the conflict was effective in preventing the destruction of its missile and drone capabilities as well as maximising the impact of its military response, people familiar with the assessments said. Plans put in place by Iran to replace senior military leaders in the event they were killed meant the country was able to minimize disruption to its command and control structures when they were targeted in the first days of the war, the people said. It also appears that Iran retains solid reserves of long-range missiles, according to assessments provided by European and Gulf officials. It still has thousands of drones in its armoury, the people added. These provide a much more nuanced picture of the outcomes of the US-Israeli operation than that portrayed by Trump and US administration officials. The effectiveness of Iran’s earlier military planning also raises the prospect that it could use the current ceasefire to make preparations for any resumption of hostilities. Story with @EllenAMilligan @AlbertoNardelli >>>
Alex Wickham
16, April

Alex Wickham: NEW: Keir Starmer has ordered…

NEW: Keir Starmer has ordered an investigation to determine how Foreign Office officials approved Mandelson’s DV despite the objections of security officials Multiple sources allege Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins was responsible, and that he didn’t tell the PM or FS about those concerns at the time The expectation among some in government is Robbins cannot remain in his job. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has summoned Robbins to appear before them The FCDO does not deny the charge An FCDO spokesperson says: “The Prime Minister has initiated a process to establish the facts of the granting of developed vetting and we are working urgently to comply with that process.” Robbins did not respond to a request for comment Story tonight: Starmer Faces Calls to Quit Over Mandelson Vetting Revelations
Alex Wickham
16, April

Alex Wickham: Where we are this morning…

Where we are this morning — Keir Starmer’s immediate challenge is convincing the cabinet and Labour MPs to believe him. There was general incredulity last night that FCDO/Olly Robbins would overturn Mandelson’s failed vetting of his own accord without telling the PM, ministers or aides. If that’s the case it would be an extraordinary failure of the system. — Why did Robbins do it and what will he say about it? If something emerges to disprove the PM’s version of events that would be terminal, most think. Either way, many in Labour think the revelations increase the chances of Starmer being ousted in May, just when he had seemed to be dodging a challenge in part thanks to the Iran crisis. — Some familiar with the thinking in the centre say they, including the PM, appear to have been genuinely in the dark about all this until Tuesday. They say they are absolutely furious about it and especially with Robbins, hence why he was straight-up sacked by the PM last night. If you take their story at face value, that’s where there is some sympathy in Labour with No10. — It still means Starmer made false statements to the public and arguably misleading ones to parliament. He himself has set a high bar for standards which it is hard to argue he’s met. He will have to explain why he didn’t immediately correct the record at PMQs on Wednesday and only when the Guardian revealed it. The relatively short amount of time that elapsed may be in his favour there, but it is still awkward. — In terms of the big question about his survival, clearly a lot depends on what else emerges and what Robbins does. That’s really the only thing that matters. The timing of the revelations may help Starmer. If this had come out in the days after the locals he would be finished, but it happening now means he at least has a chance to weather it, one Labour figure argues.