Starmer says it ‘beggars belief’ he wasn’t told about Mandelson vetting failure as he faces down the Commons – UK politics as it happened

It wasn’t much of a win, but as Keir Starmer heads back to Downing Street he will probably count that as a sort of success. Labour MPs did not turn on him; there was no one on his side calling for his resignation, and those who did speak out were mostly from the Corbynite left (whose views are discounted by No 10 anyway), and who were more keen to aim their fire at Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson.If Kemi Badenoch thought there was more mileage in this, she could have tabled a no confidence motion on this which would have to be debated tomorrow, but she didn’t. She can be brutal in the Commons, but her speech today did not cause the PM any difficulties.Last week she was saying he was clearly lying

What Starmer said, and didn’t say, in the Commons about the Mandelson saga

Keir Starmer has laid out a detailed timeline of events leading up to Peter Mandelson being refused security vetting and how the message was not passed to No 10. Here’s what his statement did tell us – and what it was more vague on.double quotation markI will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process.”In a statement that leaned heavily on Starmer’s time as a lawyer, and was framed almost as a prosecution opening case against the Foreign Office and its now-ousted head civil servant, Olly Robbins, the PM set out events from 18 December 2024, when the decision to appoint Mandelson was confirmed, to last Tuesday, when he finally learned that security vetting had been initially refused.This included moments when, Starmer argued, he or others should have been told about Mandelson initially being refused security vetting: the initial refusal; when the foreign affairs select committee was assured that normal procedures were followed; and when Starmer began a wider review into vetting this year

Starmer the Incurious asks no questions and sees no Mandy-shaped red flags

Things could be worse. The prime minister can still catch a break. Some had called Monday’s Commons statement Keir Starmer’s judgment day. But that was a category error. Many Labour MPs had long since made up their minds

Is Richard Tice’s picture AI-manipulated? Here are five giveaways

After Richard Tice posted a picture of an apparent Reform campaign event on Sunday, experts and social media detectives took a closer look and concluded from a variety of telltale signs that the image had either been edited or generated by artificial intelligence. Here are some of the elements that critics called into question.One woman has six fingers on one hand and extra long ones on the other. The man in the beige jacket has three extremely long fingers which look like sausages. AI often gets fingers wrong

Mandelson vetting saga reveals flaws in Starmer’s judgment, not process | Letters

The emerging account of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador raises a question not of process, but of judgment (Revealed: Mandelson failed vetting but Foreign Office overruled decision, 16 April). The prime minister was warned repeatedly. Briefings in November and December 2024 flagged reputational risks, including well-documented associations and potential exposure if the appointment went wrong. Keir Starmer’s national security adviser raised concerns directly. Yet the appointment proceeded at pace

Starmer orders inquiry into any security concerns over Mandelson’s tenure in US

Keir Starmer has ordered an investigation into any security concerns relating to Peter Mandelson’s tenure as UK ambassador to the US, as he set out a series of practical measures in the wake of the controversy over Mandelson’s vetting.Setting out to the Commons what he called the “frankly staggering” way that Mandelson was appointed to the job despite initially being turned down for security vetting, Starmer said he had ordered a full review into the vetting system.He went on: “Separately, I have asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.”The prime minister also set out how rules had been changed to make sure that, as happened with Mandelson, someone could not be publicly named as an ambassadorial appointee before they were vetted, even for a political choice like Mandelson.“I want to make clear to the house that for a direct ministerial appointment it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in post