Starmer to Face Commons Sleaze Vote

Keir Starmer is facing another battle for survival after Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle ruled he should face a sleaze vote, granting a debate on whether the PM should be referred to the Privileges Committee for misleading Parliament over the Mandelson scandal. The Mail has more.

Keir Starmer is facing another brutal battle for survival after the Commons Speaker ruled he should face a sleaze vote. 

Lindsay Hoyle has granted a debate on whether Sir Keir should be referred to the Privileges Committee for misleading Parliament over the Mandelson scandal.

The showdown – to be held tomorrow – means Labour MPs will be forced to decide if they will line up behind their floundering leader. A formal inquiry will be launched if the motion is passed, with Government whips already said to be ringing round strong-arming backbenchers. 

The session will begin just hours after Sir Keir’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and the ex-head of the Foreign Office give potentially explosive evidence about Mandelson’s appointment. 

The Government had been pushing to prorogue Parliament on Wednesday morning, which would have allowed Sir Keir to avoid Prime Minister’s Questions.

However, that is now impossible as the debate will take hours and legislation needs to be wrapped up before the session ends. 

Kemi Badenoch welcomed the prospect of holding Sir Keir “to the same standards he held others”. The privileges committee is the cross-party body that investigated Boris Johnson over the Covid ‘Partygate’ affair. 

But a No. 10 spokesman said: “This is a desperate political stunt by the Conservative Party the week before the May elections because they have no answers on the cost of living or the NHS. Their claims have no substance.”

Downing Street has been mobilising the PM’s few remaining allies, with Labour veterans Alan Johnson and David Blunkett dismissing the idea of a privileges probe.

However, the fevered mood in the party is intensifying as catastrophic local elections loom next week. There are claims that Andy Burnham has proposed a Blair-Brown style pact to Angela Rayner, making her his deputy if he takes over from Sir Keir.

Addressing the Commons this afternoon, Sir Lindsay said “numerous” MPs had asked for a debate on referring the matter to the Privileges Committee.

“As a gatekeeper, my role is to decide whether an honourable member has made a case which the House itself should be able to consider, not to decide whether someone is likely to have committed a contempt,” the Speaker said. 

“If precedence is given, the member tables a motion for debate. At the end of the debate, the House itself takes a decision on whether (the) matter should be taken further.”

In a nod to claims from Ministers about political game playing, Sir Lindsay added: “Some may be wondering why this issue is being looked at now. To be clear, I cannot determine whether an application is made.

“I have to consider any application when it comes to me. In this case, having taken advice, I’ve decided to allow the House to come to a view on whether the Committee of Privileges should look at the matter.”

Ministers look to be leaning towards whipping MPs to oppose the motion, rather than leaving it as a free vote. With Labour’s huge majority it would take a significant revolt for the motion to be passed.

Ahead of Tuesday’s Commons debate, Downing Street published a letter from then-Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to Sir Keir in September last year, shortly after Lord Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to the US.

The PM has been accused of misleading Parliament over his previous claims that “full due process” was followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson, despite it later being revealed the disgraced peer failed security checks.

As No. 10 sought to bolster its defence, the letter published on Monday revealed how Sir Chris told the PM last year that the appointment process for Lord Mandelson was “unusual but not irregular”.

The former top Whitehall official, who was sacked himself by Sir Keir in February this year, added in the message on September 16th: “The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.”

Sir Chris said the security vetting and the process on conflicts of interest took place after the decision to appoint but that he did not consider this to be “material” because the vetting process was complete when Lord Mandelson took up post in February last year and “it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment”.

Worth reading in full.