[ad_1]
Last week it was Angela Rayner, and this week it is Lord Mandelson.
The prime minister went to the commons on Wednesday all guns blazing, declaring full confidence in his colleague, before folding faster than a deck chair mere hours later. “Phase two” of this government is off to such a cracking start that I can hardly wait to see what is in store during “Phase three”.
On a more serious note, Lord Mandelson may no longer be US ambassador, but Starmer still has many questions he must answer about this debacle. And the Labour Party has many questions it must answer about Starmer and his team.
Firstly, the prime minister must clarify what he knew about Mandelson’s associations with Jeffrey Epstein, and when. In their response to a written parliamentary question I tabled, the government explained that all ambassadors must obtain developed vetting (DV). This process takes on average six to nine months, and entails detailed scrutiny of all corners of an individual’s personal life, from their drug habits and romantic relationships to their friends and associations.
Did this independent procedure, in which our prime minister has such faith, not uncover any of the information that has now come to light? If so, why not? And if it did, why was it brushed under the rug? There should not be one rule for most civil servants, and another for the prime minister’s pals.
Secondly, the prime minister must publish all official information relating to Epstein’s involvement in the billion-pound sale of the UK-taxpayer owned Sempra Commodities to JP Morgan while Mandelson was a business minister. Mandelson has long claimed that he had no professional relationship with Epstein – the facts seem to show otherwise.
But perhaps the biggest question is this: what role did Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, play in supporting and defending Mandelson? It has been reported that McSweeney was behind Mandelson’s appointment to Washington, before pushing for a robust defence of him during Wednesday’s bedlam. Mandelson is known to have close links to McSweeney; in fact, he helped McSweeney get his foot in the Westminster door during the New Labour years.
Maybe it is not just Starmer’s judgement that should be questioned, but also McSweeney’s. Why did an unelected official advise Starmer to appoint Mandelson in the first place? Why did he so fervently back him despite his clear associations with a convicted sex offender, and most crucially, why did Starmer listen to him?
The British public deserves answers. That’s why I have asked the prime minister to disclose all advice given to him by his chief of staff regarding the appointment of Mandelson to the post of ambassador as well as any meetings or correspondence between McSweeney and Mandelson.
There is no doubt that appointing Mandelson was a grave error of judgement on the part of the prime minister. But perhaps it is his slavish obedience to McSweeney’s every word that will be his final and most fatal mistake.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
The post Gavin Williamson: ‘Appointing Mandelson was a grave error – Starmer must be held accountable’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.
[ad_2]
Source link
