Kemi Badenoch is pushing for a Commons vote on investigating Keir Starmer over alleged lies about Peter Mandelson's vetting. Labour grandees have criticized the inquiry proposal as a political stunt.
Key points
Kemi Badenoch seeks Commons vote on Starmer inquiry
Allegations involve Starmer lying about Mandelson's vetting
Labour grandees criticize inquiry as political stunt
Outcome could impact Starmer's reputation and Labour's response
Mentioned in this story
Kemi BadenochKeir StarmerPeter MandelsonBoris JohnsonAlan JohnsonDavid Blunkett
Good morning. Kemi Badenoch is trying to get Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, to give MPs a vote on a proposal to get the Commons privileges committee to investigate allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs in statements he made to them about the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Other opposition parties may be backing her, but we don’t know for sure because the process is relatively secret; MPs have to write a private letter to the speaker, who then decides whether this is a serious request that should be decided by the Commons as a whole, or a frivolous complaint that should be ignored. (We do know that Karl Turner has written to the speaker about this too, but only because he was daft enough to post his letter on social media last week.) Today we are likely to find out whether or not Hoyle is agreeing to a Commons vote.
Boris Johnson was referred to the privileges committee over allegations that he lied to MPs about Partygate (allegations the committee concluded were justified). Badenoch wants to make the case that Starmer is just as dishonest as Johnson. He isn’t, by any stretch, and the claims that Starmer lied to MPs about Mandelson are spurious; they relate to contest intepretations of political language of the kind that are commonplace in parliamentary debate. But the fact that this has even become a live consideration for the speaker is a big win for the Tories.
If Hoyle does allow a debate, which would probably take place tomorrow, Badenoch whether the referral motion passes or not. If Labour MPs vote against an inquiry, she will be able to accuse them of a cover-up. If MPs approve an inquiry (because Labour decides not to use its majority to block the motion), then Starmer faces the ignominy of being in the same category as Johnson (at least unless or until an inquiry eventually clears him).
So the best option for No 10 is for Hoyle to not allow a vote in the first place. And that perhaps explains why some Labour grandees have been out condeming the call for an inquiry in the first place.
Alan Johnson and David Blunkett, who are both former home secretaries, have given a joint statement to the Times describing the proposals for a privileges committee inquiry as a “nakedly political stunt”. They say:
Q&A
What allegations are being made against Keir Starmer regarding Peter Mandelson?
Kemi Badenoch is alleging that Keir Starmer lied to MPs about the vetting process of Peter Mandelson.
Who is supporting the call for an inquiry into Starmer's statements?
Kemi Badenoch is leading the charge, with some opposition parties potentially backing her, though details remain unclear.
What could happen if the Commons votes on the inquiry into Starmer?
If the inquiry is approved, Starmer could face scrutiny similar to Boris Johnson's Partygate allegations; if rejected, it may be seen as a cover-up.
How have Labour grandees reacted to the inquiry proposal?
Former home secretaries Alan Johnson and David Blunkett have condemned the inquiry call as a 'nakedly political stunt.'
See every story in News — including breaking news and analysis.
double quotation markThe fact that Kemi Badenoch has changed the accusations she is levelling against the PM on an almost daily basis as her claims have failed to stand up to scrutiny shows what this is really about. This is a nakedly political stunt with no substance ahead of the May elections.
Any comparison with Boris Johnson is absurd. When parliament referred that matter to the privileges committee, a police investigation had directly disproved his categoric statements that he knew nothing about the breach of lockdown rules.
And, on the Today programme this morning, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee, also dismissed the proposal. Asked if there was a need for an inquiry like this, she pointed out that her own committee is already looking at this, and she pointed out that the government is about to publish more documents about the appointment. She said:
double quotation markI suppose our constituents might ask [if a privileges committee goes ahead], have we got the balance right between holding the government to account and seemingly squabbling amongst ourselves when there is so much else going on that perhaps parliament ought to be focusing on as well.
Asked if she was saying ‘not yet’ in relation to a privileges committee inquiry, Thornberry replied:
double quotation markI have to say, a really truthful position is, why the rush at the moment? Has it got anything to do with local elections?
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Reform UK is organising what it is calling a “national fuel protest” in Whitehall calling for action to cut petrol prices. (There don’t seem to be any plans to protest outside the US embassy.)
10.30am: John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scottish first minister, speaks about the SNP’s first 100 days priorities if they win the Holyrood election. At a separate event, Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is launching his party’s manifesto for women.
Morning:Keir Starmer is in the north-west of England where he is giving a speech on shoplifting.
Lunchtime: Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, is highlighting Green plans to bring bus services under public control.
2.30pm: If Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, does decide to allow a vote on referring Keir Starmer to the privileges committee, he is likely to tell MPs as Commons business starts.
2.30pm: Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3pm: Peers debate the crime and policing bill, and the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, as the parliamentary ‘ping pong’ process continues.
After 3.30pm: And MPs debate the English devolotion and community empowerment bill and the pension schemes bill as part of the ‘ping pong process’. Later they may vote on Lords amendments to the crime bill and the children’s wellbeing bill.
Afternoon: MPs vote to carry over into the next session two bills: the Northern Ireland Troubles bill, and the public office (accountability) bill (aka, the Hillsborough bill).
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
