Starmer could have been told about Mandelson’s vetting failure, claims No 10 with release of briefing paper – UK politics live

Downing Street takes unusual step of releasing document ahead of PM’s Commons showdown over Mandelson scandal

• Judgment day for PM over Mandelson scandal

Good morning. There are occasions when a prime minister wakes up knowing that how they perform in the Commons that day will decide whether or not they keep their job – but they are very, very rare. The best example in modern times is Margaret Thatcher on the day of the Westland debate, when she told staff she would still be in post that evening. Boris Johnson had multiple tricky encounters with MPs, but the most difficult – and the most important for his reputation- was the one before the privileges committee about claims that he lied about Partygate, and that came after he had resigned as PM. For James Callaghan, the confidence debate in 1979 was a terminal moment for his premiership, but that vote was not decided by what he said.

There seems to be little chance that Keir Starmer may be finished off by what happens in the Commons today. Since the revelations in the Guardian last week about Peter Mandelson in effect failing security vetting for his appointment as ambassador to the US, despite Starmer repeatedly everyone that he was cleared, Labour MPs have not been calling his resignation. It seems unlikely that by 6pm tonight that will have changed. But many or most of them were already of the view that he is not the right person to lead them into the next general election, and the events of the past few days have firmed up that view.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) does not prevent civil servants from informing ministers of UK Security Vetting recommendations. What CRAG says is that civil servants make decisions on vetting and clearance. But no law stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK security vetting recommendations, while rightly protecting detailed sensitive vetting information, to allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to parliament.

Continue reading...