UK News
Morgan McSweeney says advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson was ‘serious error of judgment’ – UK politics live | Politics
Morgan McSweeney says advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson was ‘serious error of judgment’
Morgan McSweeney is giving evidence now.
He starts with an opening statement, which he begins by recognising the harm done to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.
He talks about the importance of public service.
I’ve spent much of my working life trying, in whatever role I held, to make this country fairer, stronger and more successful.
I have always believed public service is a privilege. It brings responsibility and scrutiny, but it also brings a meaningful chance to improve people’s lives. That is what motivated me in government.
He moves on to Mandelson.
The appointment of Manderson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment. I advised the prime minister in support of that appointment and I was wrong to do so.
As I said in my resignation statement, I resigned because I believe responsibility should rest with those who make serious mistakes. Accountability in public life cannot apply only when it is convenient.
The prime minister advice relied on my advice and I got it wrong.
Key events
McSweeney says he was ‘surprised’ Foreign Office did not get Epstein files material on Mandelson from US government
Back at the foreign affairs committee, Morgan McSweeney says there is “no way” that Peter Mandelson would have been appointed ambassador to the US if the government had known the information about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that came out in the Epstein files.
But he suggests the Foreign Office should have been able to get some of this material from the US administration.
One of the things that subsequently surprised me – I would have assumed that, and maybe they did – but I would assume that our Foreign Office would have been in contact with us counterparts to see what information they held on him.
In the Commons Kemi Badenoch is opening the debate on the motion saying Keir Starmer should be referred to the privileges committee.
There is a live feed here.
Here is the text of the motion.
That this House
(1) notes the Rt hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras’s assurances on the floor of the House about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, in particular (but not limited to) answers given on 10 September 2025, 4 February and 22 April 2026, further notes his assertion on 20 April 2026 that he “had made it clear that my position was that the position was subject to developed vetting” and his assertions that “Sir Olly Robbins was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment” and that “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case” on 22 April 2026; and
(2) accordingly orders that these matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether, in making these and other related statements, the Rt hon Member may have misled the House, and whether such conduct amounts to a contempt of the House, bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers as set out in the House’s own resolution on Ministerial Accountability and the Ministerial Code.
I will stick with the foreign affairs committe for now, but cover highlights from Badenoch’s speech later.
Thornberry intervenes to say she had hoped to finish this hearing at 1pm. They will go beyond that, she says. She hopes they will wrap up by 1.20pm, but they will definitely finish by 1.30pm, she says.
McSweeney says George Osborne seen as ‘very credible’ candidate for US ambassador
Q: Was George Osborne just on the shortlist as a stooge, to make Starmer pick Mandelson?
McSweeney says the civil service had a lot of warning that a Labour government would want to appoint a political figure as ambassador to Washington.
If Kamala Harris had won, Mandelson would not have been appointed, he says.
He says Osborne was a “very credible candidate” for the job.
McSweeney says the Cabinet Office did carry out due dilegence scrutiny for George Osborne when he was being considered as a candidate for the ambassador’s job.
Q: Why were these decisions not well documented?
McSweeney says decisions in government are taken in conversation, as well as on paper.
But he says how government decisions are recorded is not a matter for him.
Thornberry intervenes. She says it is all very well taking decisons orally, but they were not recorded in writing.
She says the government has not provided evidence as to how these decisions were made.
McSweeney is now being asked about his personal relationship with Mandelson.
Q: Did you attend regular dinners with him at his house?
McSweeney says he thinks he attended two meals in Mandelson’s house in 2024. There were other people there too, he says. One was a lunch, and one was a dinner, he thinks.
And he thinks he had two restaurant meals with Mandelson.
McSweeney says government officials under pressure to act quickly – but that’s not pressure ‘to lower standards’
Referring to claims Downing Street put pressure on the Foreign Office to approve Mandelson’s vetting, McSweeney says in January 2025 getting Mandelson’s appointment confirmed wasn’t one of the most important issues facing the government.
He goes on:
I think it’s important that we unpack this idea of pressure because there’s been a lot of conversation about it.
There’s pressure in government every day, and most that pressure comes from within.
Every civil servant minister, [the staff] I worked with, woke up every morning feeling pressure to make the country better, wanting to move faster – that’s where the pressure comes from.
And No 10’s job in all of this is to make sure that the prime minister’s decisions are acted on quickly.
But there is a “real difference” between that, “asking people to lower standards,” McSweeney sayd. “And we never did that.”
McSweeney says false claim he swore at officials has caused him ‘great deal of stress’
McSweeney says he is very glad that Philip Barton has confirmed that McSweeney did not swear at him. (See 9.36am.)
He says:
This swearing rumour is it is something that has caused me a great deal of stress for a number of months.
I do not know why people do this in politics, put around untrue rumours. They phone lots of journalists. Those journalists then phone lots of politicians … It’s damaging for people’s reputations. And I think it’s unfair for staff who can speak for themselves.
Here is a Guardian video from McSweeney’s opening statement.
Thornberry asks McSweeney to clarify the apparent discrepancy between what he said at 11.50am and what he said at 12.23pm.
Sweeney says at the time he put those questions to Mandelson he thought Mandelson was telling the truth.
It was only after the Bloomberg emails were published in September 2025 that he realised Mandelson had not told the truth.
He apologises if he was not clear in his earlier comments.
McSweeney says he did not try to get Mandelson appointed as favour, or because he regarded him as ‘hero’
McSweeney told the committee that he did not try to get Mandelson appointed ambassador as a favour for a friend, or because he regarded him as a “hero”. He said:
In every advice that I gave to the prime minister, hand on heart I thought I was operating in a motive in the national interest.
In politics, over decades, you know a lot of people. In 20 years in politics, I’ve had to fire friends from jobs. I’ve had to turn people down who were desperate for jobs, who were closer friends of mine than Mandelson, who really wanted jobs in No 10, or people who thought they were going to be ministers, because I’ve always tried to operate in national interest …
This was not some hero I was trying to get a job for. I thought that his skills as EU commissioner would help us to get the trade deal that I think the country needed, because we were very, very exposed after Brexit and getting that trade deal right was very important.
Thornberry is asking again about the questions McSweeney asked Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein.
McSweeney says he put the questions in writing because he thought Mandelson was more likely to tell the truth if he were replying in writing. And that way there would be a record.
Q: Did you tell the PM that you did not think Mandelson was telling you the full truth?
McSweeney says he did not say that to the PM.
Q: And did the PM say, if that was a problem, the DV will pick it up.
No, says McSweeney.
He says that at that point he thought Mandelson was telling the truth.
He also makes the point again that, because of the Met investigation, he cannot say what Mandelson said in his replies.
McSweeney says he had no plan in place for Mandelson failing vetting
McSweeney said that, if Mandelson failed his vetting, his appointment would have been withdrawn.
I didn’t have a contingency plan [for Mandelson failing vetting] in place, but was always aware that somebody could fail security vetting, was always aware that that was a possibility for any appointment that we made.
Asked if he thought Mandelson might fail vetting, McSweeney said:
No. And if it had happened, we’d have withdrawn the ambassadorship. It would have been a political embarrassment.
The deaths of teenagers Kyrees Sullivan and Harvey Evans sparked hours of violence and vandalism.
Source link
UK News
Supreme court sides with Texas marijuana user who wants to own a firearm in latest case expanding gun rights – live | US supreme court
Supreme court backs challenge to ban on gun ownership for drug users
The supreme court has sided with a marijuana user who wants to legally own a gun, the latest in a line of firearm cases from a court that has expanded gun rights.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a resident of Texas who was charged with felony gun possession after he acknowledged being a regular marijuana user. Hemani wasn’t charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence.
The 1968 Gun Control Act makes possession of a firearm illegal for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”.
That gun restriction led to the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, who later that year received a pardon from his father, then-president Joe Biden. Prosecutors had accused him of lying about his use of narcotics in 2018 when he purchased a Colt Cobra handgun.
Hemani argued that a federal law barring gun ownership from anyone who uses drugs illegally violates the constitution’s second amendment.
The decision is a loss for the Trump administration, which had defended the 1968 law despite arguing against other gun restrictions.
Key events
Supreme court releases opinions
The supreme court has started releasing opinions, so far it has issued a ruling backing a challenge to a federal law barring drug users from owning guns.
We’ll bring you any more updates here as we get them.
Indeed, this morning’s Washington Post Early Brief (paywall) asks the question: “Are we back to where we started on Iran?”
The memorandum ends the fighting, reopens the strait of Hormuz and gives Trump a chance to claim he prevented a broader economic crisis. But many of its core terms appear to return the US and Iran to roughly where they were before the conflict: with Iran’s government still in power and its long-term nuclear commitments still unresolved.
Before the war, the strait of Hormuz saw the free flow of shipping, including roughly a fifth of the world’s oil traffic. Reopening the water way essentially restores the status quo.
Iran and the US had also already engaged in negotiations – albeit brokenly – on a framework over Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions. The negotiations were in pursuit of a deal to replace the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated under President Barack Obama, which Trump vehemently criticized and left during his first term.
The terms of the MOU diverge substantially from Trump’s initial threats to obliterate Iran unless it agreed to “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” back in March. And it diverged from long-standing conservative criticisms of Obama’s deal that lifted sanctions on Iran.
After Donald Trump’s signing of the 14-point agreement with Iran yesterday at the Palace of Versailles – the home of humiliating treaties – the question of what the president’s war was actually for continues to divide some Republicans and foreign policy hawks.
GOP senator Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, appeared to soften his view of the memorandum of understanding yesterday (from this to this) after a “very lengthy and productive” conversation with US special envoy Steve Witkoff.
“After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham wrote on X. “Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.”
But a handful of other Senate Republicans were more scathing in their views.
Outgoing Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who Trump failed to back in a tightly fought primary last month, said that the whole affair had Ronald Reagan “rolling over in his grave”. He wrote on X:
Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.
Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.
Ted Cruz, who has backed the war, said the president was getting “very poor advice when it comes to this deal”.
Susan Rice, a former official in the Obama and Biden administrations was more blunt in her assessment, calling it “the biggest national security blunder in decades”, while Democratic senator Adam Schiff said it was “hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation”.
Iran gets sanctions relief, the release of frozen funds, the ability to export oil, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. The US gets a reiteration of the vague promise Iran won’t develop a nuke.
In case you missed it, last night Donald Trump signed a 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the United States – even as it made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”.
In extraordinary remarks yesterday, Trump went from threatening Iran with a new wave of attacks to suggesting the country had basic rights to enrich uranium for civilian use, that he would not pressure Tehran to abandon its ballistic missiles programme and the US was “going to have to give back” billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
Those remarks, as well as the full text of the agreement – which was hailed by the Hezbollah chief, Naim Qassem, as a “great victory” – are likely to fuel anger in Israel and among hardliners in the Republican party who had urged Trump not to make a deal with Tehran.
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed the agreement yesterday from Tehran. US vice-president JD Vance is also expected to sign the deal at a more formal ceremony in Geneva tomorrow.
Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said:
The agreement is a record of US failure. People will see it and judge.
Supreme court to release opinions with several high-stakes rulings to come including birthright citizenship
Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog.
The supreme court is expected to render at least one judgment today as the term is set to come to an end later this month. There are a series of cases yet to be decided that are relevant to Donald Trump, including his attempt to limit birthright citizenship and plan to remove legal protection from Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
Generally, terms last between October and late June – but the most significant cases are often left until the end of the term.
There are two main immigration-based decisions yet to be made. One pending ruling is on Trump’s desire to ban birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and those whose parents are temporary residents.
“Birthright citizenship is one of America’s most consequential commitments – the idea that where you are born, not where your parents came from, determines your belonging to this nation,” said Adam Strom, executive director and co-founder of Reimagining Migration, in The74. “For the millions of immigrant-origin children in our schools, this isn’t an abstraction. It’s the ground they stand on.”
The court also has a case that will decide if the US can terminate the Temporary Protected Status that has allowed Haitian and Syrian immigrants to live and work in the country.
Other significant cases include Trump’s wish to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
In other news:
-
Donald Trump has signed a 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the US. The Guardian’s Andrew Roth argues that the US entered war with maximalist goals and exited it with a pragmatic decision to end conflict despite political cost.
-
A teenager has died after being thrown to the ground on Wednesday when a Central Park carriage horse bolted away from its driver, police in New York have said.
-
On Wednesday, court proceedings revealed that Luigi Mangione’s legal team plans on pursuing a psychiatric defense during his upcoming Manhattan state court trial over the killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson.
Forwarder, a Russian-flagged ship which left port in Primorsk last week, entered the Channel on Wednesday evening.
Source link
-
UK News4 weeks agoEx-minister Shapps quits aerospace firm over rule concerns
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoRyan Bridge speaks of London arrest after Oxford incident
-
Oxford News3 weeks agoOxfordshire families invited to free day of fun in Bicester
-
Oxford Events4 weeks agoSalon Privé 2026 unveils first concours entries led by one-off 1952 Ferrari once owned by Juan Perón
-
UK News4 weeks agoRussian threats against Baltics ‘unacceptable’ and danger to ‘our entire union’, EU’s von der Leyen says – Europe live | Europe
-
Crime & Safety3 weeks agoPhotos as 1979 Pontiac Firebird ‘bursts in flames’ at Tesco
-
Business & Technology3 weeks agoNew ‘high-quality’ mushroom business launched in Oxford
-
Business & Technology4 weeks agoOxford: Rare watch sold for £40k after being saved from skip