The Conservatives are now claiming that Morgan McSweeney has “serious questions” to answer about the account he has given about the loss of his mobile phone last year.Earlier today the Metropolitan police released the entire transcript of the conversation McSweeney had with a 999 call handler at least partly in response to suggestions that, if the PM’s chief of staff had really had his phone stolen, the Met would have taken it more seriously.The transcript shows that McSweeney revealed it was a government phone that had been taken, but did not disclose his job title, or the fact he worked in Downing Street.(See 11.54am.

)This has not stopped people suggesting that McSweeney wanted to get rid of the phone to avoid having the disclose his messages to Peter Mandelson (as he is now required to do – under a Commons humble address passed more than three months after the phone theft was reported).Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed talk of a cover-up.(See 11.36am.)But Kemi Badenoch has let it be known that she thinks the conspiracy theorists might be onto something.

(See 11.36am.)But now her party has actually issued a press release headlined: Conservatives raise serious questions about Morgan McSweeney’s ‘stolen phone’.It quotes Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister (and not a politician normally associated with tinfoil hat-type thinking), saying:double quotation markThis whole thing stinks to high heaven.We know the government were worried about a humble address in October, shortly before McSweeney’s phone got ‘stolen’.

McSweeney didn’t back up the messages and the government didn’t chase the Met for CCTV,From the outset of the Mandelson affair Keir Starmer has tried to cover things up,The prime minister did it in September with ‘I didn’t know the depth of the relationship’,He didn’t want to release the Mandelson files in February until we forced the humble address,Now the chief of staff’s phone goes missing and there doesn’t seem to be any intent to get it back or retrieve the messages.

Starmer needs to end this cover up now.See 4.39pm for more on what the Tory press release says.Political donations from British citizens living abroad are to be capped at £100,000 a year from Wednesday, in a move that is likely to limit further funding from Reform UK’s Thailand-based mega-donor, Christopher Harborne.The Conservative party has suggested that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, has “serious questions” to answer about the theft of his mobile phone.

(See 4.37pm.) Others disagree; Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed claims that McSweeney might have been deliberately trying to get rid of the phone as a conspiracy theory.(See 11.36am.

)A homophobic joke made by the leader of Reform Scotland is a “warning to this country of what is coming”, the first finister has said,As the Press Association reports, Malcolm Offord has apologised and denied he is homophobic after it emerged he made a joke about the late George Michael while giving a speech in 2018,Speaking at the Scottish parliament, Liberal Democrat MSP Jamie Greene shared concerns that there are people who “aspire to become MSPs” that are “cracking jokes at the expense of gay people”,He said:double quotation markThe reality is we have seen in recent times a rise in antisemitic abuse and far-right protests, and there are people who aspire to become MSPs in this place who are spouting Islamophobic bile on social media and cracking jokes at the expense of gay people,So, can I pose a challenge not just to the first minister, but to the leader of all political parties who hope to return members to this place, that they will commit their parties in the next parliamentary term to use their privilege of platform wisely, to debate with decency and remember that the language used in here affects people out there.

Swinney responded that the joke from Offord was a “warning to this country of what is coming”.He said:double quotation markI am horrified by some of the behaviour that is now expressed publicly in our society of racial intolerance, of hatred towards other people, there are people that stand with banners in my constituency outside a hotel accommodating asylum seekers with language which is hate-filled, and it is appalling.The “joke” really is vile and gross, but if feel you really need to read it to understand the story, it is not hard to find on X.The former justice minister Crispin Blunt has been fined £1,200 for possessing illegal drugs after he told a court he entered the world of chemsex parties to help inform government policy.Hundreds of UK teenagers will trial social media bans, digital curfews and time limits on apps under a government pilot, which will run alongside a consultation to decide whether the UK should ban access to social media for the under-16s.

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.These are from Danny Shaw, a former BBC home affairs correspondent and an adviser to Yvette Cooper for a brief period, on the Tory implicit allegations about Morgan McSweeney.(See 4.37pm and 4.39pm.

)double quotation markSo, what exactly is the allegation against Morgan McSweeney?That he arranged the theft?Or, disposed of his phone then lied, telling police and No 10 Security staff it had been stolen?Both are absurd, frankly.However, he did make three mistakes..double quotation mark1 Not being clear about location of theft (somewhat understandable if you’ve just been victim of a street crime)2 Not telling 999 operator phone contained sensitive info & case needed urgent response (harder to explain)3 Thinking Met & govt security were joined up & would cross-check info he gave them (this is my assumption on what he probably thought at the time)double quotation markMandelson appointment was disastrous for McSweeney & Govt.But the idea he would commit a serious criminal offence, risking imprisonment, to try to get rid of phone messages that are anyway probably stored elsewhere & retrievable … I just don’t buy it.

Cock-up, not conspiracy,Chris Osuh is a community affairs correspondent at the Guardian,Parliament in the UK has been urged to push for a state apology for Britain’s role in enslavement and colonialism,Bell Ribeiro-Addy, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, was presenting a petition in parliament today to mark United Nations International Day for the Remembrance of Victims of the Transatlantic Slave Trade,As well as calling for the Commons to get the UK government to make a formal apology, the petition calls for an “all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice” to examine the legacy of colonialism and transatlantic slavery and propose steps to address the ongoing damage.

Ribeiro-Addy said:double quotation markTo this day, our country has never provided a genuine apology for the crimes of British Empire or the transatlantic slave trade.Rather than acknowledging these historical injustices and how they have shaped the world we live in today, our institutions have sought to sweep them under the carpet.So many of the intersecting global challenges we now face are rooted in the legacies of enslavement and empire: from geopolitical instability to racism, inequality, underdevelopment and climate breakdown.To truly confront these issues, we must acknowledge where they come from.An apology could be a meaningful basis for action, signalling our country’s commitment not simply to righting historic wrongs but to tackling ongoing issues they have created and exacerbated.

The petition highlights how, despite their “central role” in “the horrific system of African chattel enslavement and the violence of colonialism”, parliament, the UK government and the british monarchy have never made a “full and meaningful apology.”It says former prime minister Tony Blair’s 2007 expression of “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade”, does not amount to a genuine apology for “the enslavement, trafficking, genocide, and exploitation committed under British authority.”The petition adds:double quotation markWe believe that a formal national apology and the establishment of an all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice would mark an essential first step towards acknowledging this grave historical injustice.Only through truth and accountability can our nation begin to heal and engage honestly with the countries and communities affected — including discussions of reparatory justice, which must go beyond financial compensation to include education, restoration, and reconciliation.The Conservative party press release (see 4.

37pm) lists four questions that the Tories say need to be answered.Here they are (direct quotes from the Tory press release) – with possible answers (from me).1) Why did Morgan McSweeney not tell the Metropolitan Police that his stolen phone contained sensitive information?Answer?: Because they did not ask that directly, because McSweeney did tell them it was a government phone, and because he had already called what he called his “office” (presumably No 10) about the theft?2) Why did Morgan McSweeney not correct the Metropolitan Police when they repeatedly referred to Stepney when Morgan McSweeney was alleged to be in Westminster?Answer?: It was not repeatedly; it was twice.At the first mention of Stepney, McSweeney did not confirm that.Asked if he was near Stepney Green Park, he then said “Yeah”.

Perhaps he did not know the name of one of the small parks in Pimlico he might have been near, but assumed the call handler, with a map in front of them, did?3) Why did Morgan McSweeney ask for police to update him on his personal email address when the theft related to a work device?Answer?: Because he uses his No 10 work email for work?4) Did Morgan McSweeney provide details on the phone and its nature to an investigating officer following the theft?Answer?: Did the police get in touch to ask? There is nothing in the statement they issued today suggesting McSweeney was not giving them all the information they needed,The Conservatives are now claiming that Morgan McSweeney has “serious questions” to answer about the account he has given about the loss of his mobile phone last year,Earlier today the Metropolitan police released the entire transcript of the conversation McSweeney had with a 999 call handler at least partly in response to suggestions that, if the PM’s chief of staff had really had his phone stolen, the Met would have taken it more seriously,The transcript shows that McSweeney revealed it was a government phone that had been taken, but did not disclose his job title, or the fact he worked in Downing Street,(See 11.

54am.)This has not stopped people suggesting that McSweeney wanted to get rid of the phone to avoid having the disclose his messages to Peter Mandelson (as he is now required to do – under a Commons humble address passed more than three months after the phone theft was reported).Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed talk of a cover-up.(See 11.36am.

)But Kemi Badenoch has let it be known that she thinks the conspiracy theorists might be onto something.(See 11.36am.)But now her party has actually issued a press release headlined: Conservatives raise serious questions about Morgan McSweeney’s ‘stolen phone’.It quotes Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister (and not a politician normally associated with tinfoil hat-type thinking), saying:double quotation markThis whole thing stinks to high heaven.

We know the government were worried about a humble address in October, shortly before McSweeney’s phone got ‘stolen’,McSweeney didn’t back up the messages and the government didn’t chase the Met for CCTV,From the outset of the Mandelson affair Keir Starmer has tried to cover things up,The prime minister did it in September with ‘I didn’t know the depth of the relationship’,He didn’t want to release the Mandelson files in February until we forced the humble address.

Now the chief of staff’s phone goes missing and there doesn’t seem to be any intent to get it back or retrieve the messages.Starmer needs to end this cover up now.See 4.39pm for more on what the Tory press release says.Groups campaigning for a fairer democratic system in the UK have broadly welcomed the Rycroft review, and the government’s response to it.

But they are also saying the government should go further, and impose a cap on the maximum amount any individual is allowed to donate to a political party.This is from Tom Brake, a former Lib Dem MP who is now chief executive of Unlock Democracy.double quotation markCryptocurrency donations pose a real and present threat to the integrity of UK democracy.They are hard to trace and easy to move across borders, creating clear risks of dirty and foreign money entering politics.The Rycroft review is right to recommend a moratorium on crypto donations, and it should only be lifted once we can be sure it is safe to do so.

We welcome the recommendation to base company donation limits on post-tax profits rather than revenue, and that no corporate donor can give more than their post-tax profits, averaged over the previous two years, in any given year.We also note the recommended cap on donations from overseas voters.But the government could and should go further still.Big money distorts politics regardless of its origin.A fixed cap is needed across the board to prevent large donations, whether from overseas voters or domestic sources, from buying influence.

This is from Duncan Hames, another former Lib Dem MP who is now director of policy at Transparency International UK,double quotation markPhilip Rycroft’s report is clear-eyed about the scale of the threat and his recommendations to tighten the rules deserve to be adopted through the representation of the people bill,But even Rycroft acknowledges that his remit didn’t extend to the most fundamental question — whether to cap how much any single donor can give,He recognises that unlimited donations are driving an arms race for funds and invites parliament to debate this during the Bill’s passage,Parliament should take him up on that.

A meaningful annual cap on donations is the most robust safeguard against both foreign interference and the outsized influence of big money in our politics.And this is from Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society.double quotation markThe representation of the people bill would be greatly strengthened by taking on the recommendations of Rycroft’s report.However, the government must go further and also bring in a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad.This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.Today was the final first minister’s questions – moved from the usual Thursday to Wednesday to fit recess timings – before the Holyrood elections on 7 May and it was very much as though the campaign has already started.Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay attacked “jaded” John Swinney and his “dishonest incompetent and sleazy government”.Swinney told Findlay he was “peddling a doom-loop of despair” and that his party was going to get “trashed” on election day.Anas Sarwar likewise attacked the SNP government’s record, but Swinney hit back at the Scottish Labour leader’s very public U-turn in support for Keir Starmer showed him to be “a man of poor judgment the people of Scotland should not listen to on 7 May”