Keir Starmer has been hit by a fresh Downing Street resignation.Paul Ovenden has resigned as director of strategy at No 10 over revelations, first published by the Mail, that in 2017 he made sexually explicit comments about Diane Abbott in a private email.Ovenden was a Labour party press officer at the time.In his story for the Mail, Dan Hodges reports:The Mail understands that Mr Ovenden had exchanged emails with a former colleague in 2017 in which he retold a story about a game of ‘shag, marry, kill’ involving Ms Abbott he had overheard.He then graphically recounted the conversation in which two women described performing sex acts on Ms Abbott, 71, the veteran MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

Mr Ovenden has resigned to avoid becoming ‘a distraction’.A senior adviser to Keir Starmer has resigned after it was revealed he sent inappropriate messages about the Labour MP Diane Abbott eight years ago.The MP Danny Kruger has defected from the Conservatives to Reform UK, declaring the Tory party “is over” and Nigel Farage is the “new custodian” of conservatism and the political right’s “last hope” of governing Britain.Keir Starmer has broken his silence about sacking Peter Mandelson as US ambassador over the envoy’s close friendship with the financier Jeffrey Epstein.Downing Street has fiercely condemned Elon Musk for using “dangerous and inflammatory” language, after he told a crowd of protesters in London that “violence is coming” and “you either fight back or you die”.

For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.Steve Baker, the former Tory minister and leading pro-Brexit organiser in parliament, has told the PM programme that the defection of Danny Kruger to Reform UK will have an impact on the whole nation.He explainedI regard this as a major seismic event, politically, one which will have long-term aftershocks, which will be felt by the whole nation.For two reasons, if I may.First, because Danny is a man of skill, talent, vision and experience, capable of making Reform fit to govern.

He’s not to be underestimated,You can see that, if you listen to his speech and hear how he answered questions, it is for good reason that he’s worked for multiple prime ministers over 15 years,Secondly, because I’m afraid none of this can be understood without realising that across the whole western world the major axis of politics is no longer economic organisation, it’s no longer capitalism versus socialism, it’s cosmopolitan globalists versus communitarian nationalists,You see that in the USA,You see here,And what’s happening is that Danny is the Conservative party’s intellectual leader for the communitarian nationalists.

UPDATE: Baker also said on PM he thought Nigel Farage would ultimate seek to agree some sort of pact with the Tories.He explained:Nigel Farage must know from polling that he’s not really very likely to secure an outright majority with a landslide.It’s quite likely at the next election that what he’ll do is be the largest party in parliament, but at the moment it looks like without some kind of deal, he’ll have so wiped out the Conservatives that they’re not large enough to get him over the line in a coalition.So the big challenge for Nigel is, does he really want to go down to the absolute last mile of trying to destroy the Conservatives? And if so, is he willing to have the blame for leaving this rotten Labour party still in power? I don’t think he’ll do that.I reckon about a year out from the election he’ll realise he doesn’t want the blame for Labour continuing in power with no idea what to do.

And he’ll end up with some kind of electoral pact and then a coalition.A reader asks:In last week’s Liveblog you posted about Starmer’s PPS appointments, noting that the overall numbers had increased.Q: How big is Labour’s ‘payroll’ vote? How does it compare to previously and to previous governments? Given his network of ‘champions’, as well as ministerial appointments, is Starmer using prime ministerial patronage to shore up his position, especially after Rayner’s resignation, Mandelson’ sacking and some MPs effectively putting him ‘on notice’?There are three questions there.1) In August the Institute for Government said there were around 171 MPs who were part of the payroll vote (“89 ministers (including whips) in the House of Commons, 43 parliamentary private secretaries, 27 ‘mission champions’ (four of which were appointed to be PPS in March 2025), 16 Labour trade envoys”) and that number has probably gone up; there are nine more PPSs, but a few of the mission champions and trade envoys may have gone.I don’t have a precise count.

2) This is almost certainly a record.PPS numbers have been going up steadily over the past few decades, trade envoys are relatively new, and “mission champions” are a Starmerite creation.3) Yes.But it only works up to a point.Being a “mission champion” is relatively meaningless, and if any of them are strongly minded to rebel, have a payroll non-job won’t hold them back.

In his speech requesting an emergency debate (see 4.44pm), the former Tory cabinet minister David Davis said the post of ambassador to the US was “of utmost concern” to the Commons.He said:Our ambassador in Washington stands at the centre of Britain’s most vital bilateral relationship.It’s a role of exceptional sensitivity, with more classified intelligence crossing the ambassador’s desk than reaches most cabinet ministers.The post carries immense responsibility.

The ambassador represents Britain’s interests to our most powerful ally, and in so doing, shapes our reputation abroad.His conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of professionalism, discretion and integrity.Nothing less will do.Davis said it should have been obvious Mandelson did not meet these standards.What was public about Mandelson’s past is more than enough to disqualify him from consideration as ambassador.

From his resignation from government, not once, but twice, first in ‘98 for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and then in 2001 for helping a wealthy businessman get a passport, to his links to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a gangster capitalist who benefited to the tune of many millions of pounds from policies promoted and signed off by Lord Mandelson when he was EU trade minister, and his commercial links, defending China.All of this was in the public domain before the prime minister appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador … Why was it ever thought acceptable to appoint a man with such a chequered and murky background to such a vitally informed decision?And Davis said the ministers had questions to answer.The house needs to know what vetting was done and when, what was the opinion of the Foreign Office, the foreign secretary, the Cabinet Office and the security services? And when was the prime minister told?We need to know who knew what and when.The government must take the house with it on these appointments.But their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover up.

And it’s not just a question of the prime minister’s political judgment, important as that is, it’s a question of ethics.It’s a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour when in positions of power.David Davis had the backing of Tory HQ when he applied for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson and Kemi Badenoch has issued a statement welcoming the fact that a debate will take place tomorrow.She said:There are too many unanswered questions around Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.No 10’s story keeps changing, meanwhile the public have a right to know the truth about what the prime minister and his chief of staff knew and when.

If Keir Starmer won’t face the music himself, we will use this debate in parliament to pressure the relevant documents out of No 10 and the government.The Tories claimed the emergency debate was the latest in a series of coordinated parliamentary moves intended to put pressure on Keir Starmer on this issue.As other examples, they cited Badenoch raising this at PMQs last week, Neil O’Brien tabling an urgent question on Thursday, and Gavin Williamson tabling an early day motion on Wednesday calling for Mandelson’s resignation.Paul Ovenden is not well known, but journalists and commentators familiar with how Downing Street works are saying that his departure (see 3.03pm) is highly significant.

He was seen as one of the key figures in the operation.From my colleague Jessica ElgotWhatever you think of these messages, the reality is this story and Paul Ovenden’s subsequent resignation has provoked pure unadulterated fury from long-serving Labour aides.Many saying they do not believe Starmer should have accepted his resignation.Even though he is the least well known, Ovenden’s resignation has the potential to be the most consequential of all because of the internal backlash it will cause among the most long-serving and loyal Starmer aides.From Patrick Maguire from the TimesHard to overstate the dismay within government at this – lot of discomfort that Ovenden has had to quit for recounting what he calls a “silly conversation” eight years ago.

Leaves Starmer without a speechwriter, and many other things, ahead of conferenceSenior government source attacks Starmer on Ovenden resignation: “You can tell all you need to know about a leader from who and what they fight for.“The prime minister should have taken one look at one of his most skilful and loyal aides and torn up the resignation.”From Kevin Schofield from HuffPost UKNot many people outside Westminster will know who Paul Ovenden is, but his departure is arguably more significant than Angela Rayner’s, given the key role he played in No.10 and his importance to Keir Starmer.From the House Magazine’s Sienna Rodgers, former editor of LabourListPaul Ovenden going is big news.

The highly influential director of political strategy, formerly in the comms team and then head of attack and rebuttal, was Morgan McSweeney’s main ally,From the Sun’s Harry ColeBad news for No10 as Paul Ovenden was leading member of the reality based community left in Downing Street,Presumably why he’s been taken out now in a factional hit job,Would anyone really enjoy their 8 year old leaked WhatsApps being made public?From the BBC’s Henry ZeffmanQuite unbelievable the churn in government over just 15 days — remember the Downing Street shakeup which preceded the crises of the past 2 weeks?! But in terms of immediate proximity to Starmer and influence over his day to day work, Paul Ovenden’s arguably most significantFrom the Sun’s Jack ElsomPaul Ovenden’s departure from No10 has left many of his loyal colleagues reeling,One senior govt insider: “Paul is one of the good guys and the finest political mind in the country.

The Labour landslide was in no small part down to his strategy and work ethic, and the damage to the project will be immense.”From Alex Wickham from BloombergGovernment source on Ovenden’s departure:“He is one of the best.None of us would be working in this building without him - and this country wouldn’t have had the chance for a better future without him.”Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, has just announced that he has granted an emergency debate on the vetting procedures that were applied before Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the US.The debate will take place tomorrow, before the Commons rises for the conference recess.

Hoyle was responding to an application for a debate from David Davis, the Tory former cabinet minister.Davis was applying for a debate under the SO24 (standing order 24) procedure.British prosecutors have said they are dropping charges against two men, including a former researcher for a senior UK politician, who had been accused of spying for China.In a statement on the decision to MPs, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, said that he was “extremely disappointed” that the case was not going to trial.He said:Members right across the house will be aware that the charges related to allegations of Chinese espionage within parliament, and they will want reassurance.

Now, many members will be as extremely disappointed as I am that there will now not be a trial.The decision not to proceed with this prosecution is an independent one for the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] to make in its role as the UK’s independent prosecuting authority.However, I want to be clear that the government remains gravely concerned about the threat of Chinese espionage.Parliament and our democracy are sacrosanct and any attempt by any foreign power to infiltrate or interfere with parliamentary proceedings is completely unacceptable.Unusually, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, also intervened at the start of the statement to say he was “very unhappy” about this outcome too.

We do not, of course, discuss the detail of security matters relating to parliament on the floor of the house, but given the very important issues raised by this case, I am asking officials to consider whether any further steps which should be taken, operational, strategic or legal, to ensure that all those who work in this parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference.I am a very unhappy Speaker with what’s happened.The fact that for two years, two years, and it’s taken ’til today for somebody to withdraw this case, that is not good or good enough.A reader asks:Why does the defection of a sitting MP from one party to another not automatically trigger a byelection? Surely the electorate selected the person on the basis of the party they represent and not the individual?The answer is – because parliament has never passed a law requiring that.Arguably, it should.

But there are plenty of constitutional reforms that arguably it should have passed.Of course, there is a long history of MPs saying that an MP who defects should resign and trigger a byelection as a matter of principle – only for them to take the opposite view when their party is the beneficiary of a switch like this.Here is Nigel Farage saying byelections should happen in a post on social media in 2022.Christian Wakeford defects as an MP from Tory to Labour.If he calls a by-election then that’s fine.

If not, he is the Dishonourable Member for Bury South.At the Reform UK press conference this morning Danny Kruger said whether or not the party was going to trigger a byelection was really a matter for Farage, the party leader.But Kruger implied he did not see the need, saying that he would carry on speaking up for conservative principles as he said he would when he was elected.Farage also claimed a byelection was not needed.He said:I don’t think Danny is going go change any politics whatsoever.

He’ll vote the same way.He’ll think the same way.He just happens to see that we are the vehicle through which he can achieve the things that he wants to see for the country, not the current, failing Conservative party.To be honest with you, if he joined from the Labour party, and if he’d been elected on a Labour manifesto and come, then I think perhaps in that situation the voters in the constituency would say, ‘Well, hang on, surely we’ve got the right to have a say on this?’Generally, the public don’t like byelections.Generally the public don’t like being asked to vote if I think it’s unnecessary.

And just as we’ve had defections in Wales, we’ve had defections in Scotland, and here, no, there’s no need for byelections.Other parties don’t do them either.Commenting on Danny Kruger’s defection, the Green party co-deputy leader Rachel Millward said:Let’s remember the Tories brought us 14 years of damaging austerity, climate inaction, a disastrous Brexit and the economic incompetence of Liz Truss.Having this lot join you is hardly anything to shout about.It is actually embarrassing.

But it does serve as a loud alarm bell for the rest of us about the threats to this country if Reform UK were ever to form a government.Keir Starmer has said he would never have appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US if he had known at the time the full extent of Mandleson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.In his first public comments on Mandelson’s sacking, Starmer also said the peer had not helped his case by the way he responded to questions from the Foreign Office about his private emails to Epstein.In an interview with broadcasters, Starmer said:Peter Mandelson, before he was appointed, went through a due diligence process.That’s the propriety and ethics team