Kemi Badenoch has also posted this about the Guardian exclusive saying Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US.Badenoch says:double quotation markLast September, Keir Starmer told Parliament three times that “full due process” was followed over the appointment of Lord Mandelson.We now know the Prime Minister misled the House.The Prime Minister must take responsibility.The Tory leader is implying that Starmer should resign – without saying so explicitly.

The ministerial code says:double quotation markMinisters who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister,As opposition leader, when he was up against Boris Johnson, Starmer asked in January 2022 Johnson if the code applied to him,When Johnson replied “of course”, Starmer said:double quotation markI think the prime minister said yes, he agrees that the code does apply to him,Therefore, if he misled parliament, he must resign,This is what Paul Lewis, Henry Dyer and Pippa Crerer say in their Guardian story about the possibility of Starmer misleading MPs.

double quotation markThe revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.It is not known whether the prime minister was made aware that his pick for Washington ambassador had not been granted approval by UKSV, which conveys its decision as a recommendation to government departments.Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.Prospect, the union which represents civil servants working at UK Security Vetting (UKSV), says No 10 was wrong to allow people to think that vetting was not carried out properly.

In a statement, the union’s general secretary, Mike Clancy, said:double quotation markIt is deeply unfortunate that following the resignation of Morgan McSweeney Downing Street allowed the impression to circulate that the vetting of Peter Mandelson had not been done correctly by UK Security Vetting.Not only were UKSV put in an invidious position by being asking to conduct vetting after an appointment had been announced, but now deeply troubling reports have appeared in the media claiming that UKSV advice was overruled.Civil Servants, particularly those working in the most sensitive parts of government cannot speak publicly, and deserve ministers to take responsibility for the decisions they take and not to seek to deflect blame onto them.The Green party is also calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation over what he said about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US – and what he subsequently said about.The party issued a statement from the Green MP Siân Berry saying:double quotation markKeir Starmer has lied and lied again over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he must resign.

Starmer told parliament ‘due process’ had been followed,This report makes clear that was untrue,He has tried to blame the vetting process, when in fact it is reported that a decision was taken to ignore a failed vetting,We need answers on what and when Starmer and David Lammy knew about this decision to overrule the vetting report,The precise reasons for Mandelson’s failure to pass this vetting must be made public, even though it was known to everyone that Mandelson was friends with the world’s most notorious paedophile prior to the appointment.

It is outrageous that it is being reported that senior government officials are now considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that show Mandelson wasn’t given security clearance.No more buck passing, no more mysteriously vanishing mobile phones, the public need the truth.Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, also suggesting that this could be a resignation matter for Keir Starmer.He has posted this on social media.double quotation markIf Keir Starmer has misled Parliament and lied to the British people, he has to go.

Although this is quite similar to what Kemi Badenoch is saying (see 4,06pm), she is saying Starmer did mislead MPs, while Davey is still treating that as unresolved (“if”),As explained earlier, on the basis of what we know, the misleading parliament charge is contestable,(See 4,35pm.

)But Davey says lying to the public (ie, at a press conference) should also be a resignation matter, and on this Starmer is on a bit more shaky ground.(See 4.35pm.)UPDATE: Davey has also issued a slightly longer version of the social media post.He says:double quotation markKeir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgment.

Now it looks as though he has also misled parliament and lied to the British public,If that is the case, he must go,Labour came into Government on a promise to clean up politics,Instead we’re seeing the same old sleaze, scandal and cover-ups as we did under the ConservativesThe Conservatives have sent out a briefing notes with the quotes from Keir Starmer when he told MPs three times at PMQs on 10 September last year (twice in response to questions from Kemi Badenoch, and once in response to a question from Ed Davey) that “due process” was followed when Peter Mandelson was appointed,Starmer said:double quotation markAs [Badenoch] and the house would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors.

And then:double quotation markAs I say, full due process was gone through in relation to this appointment, as would be expected.And then:double quotation markAs I have made clear to the house, full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.As explained earlier, it is not clear yet whether Starmer was told Mandelson had failed his security vetting, and that the Foreign Office had decided to overrule this.At a subsequent press conference in February this year, Starmer said there was “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role.You have to go through that before you take up the post.

”Given that Mandelson did not pass the vetting, and that his appointment was only allowed because the Foreign Office took a decision to overrule this judgment, it is hard to see how the claim that the vetting led to clearance can be described as accurate.But the ministerial code (see 4.06pm) does not particularly address misleading or lying to journalists.It is only deliberately misleading parliament that is a resignation offence.And Starmer might argue that due process was followed – because due process allows a vetting failure to be overruled.

That is an argument that might appeal to lawyers – but not laymen.At least Starmer did not try to claim the normal process had been followed, because that would definitely be untrue.Kemi Badenoch has also posted this about the Guardian exclusive saying Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US.Badenoch says:double quotation markLast September, Keir Starmer told Parliament three times that “full due process” was followed over the appointment of Lord Mandelson.We now know the Prime Minister misled the House.

The Prime Minister must take responsibility,The Tory leader is implying that Starmer should resign – without saying so explicitly,The ministerial code says:double quotation markMinisters who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister,As opposition leader, when he was up against Boris Johnson, Starmer asked in January 2022 Johnson if the code applied to him,When Johnson replied “of course”, Starmer said:double quotation markI think the prime minister said yes, he agrees that the code does apply to him.

Therefore, if he misled parliament, he must resign.This is what Paul Lewis, Henry Dyer and Pippa Crerer say in their Guardian story about the possibility of Starmer misleading MPs.double quotation markThe revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.It is not known whether the prime minister was made aware that his pick for Washington ambassador had not been granted approval by UKSV, which conveys its decision as a recommendation to government departments.

Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.Kemi Badenoch is still going on about sex toys too.She posted this on social media, responding to a tweet pointing out that this morning No 10 did not deny a claim that Rachel Reeves privately cited the MoD’s record on gender parity as a reason not to give it more money.(See 1.22pm.

)double quotation markIt’s bad enough Labour MPs are flogging sex toys in Parliament this week,But if Reeves isn’t funding our armed forces because 50% of them aren’t female, she is unfit for government,This is a new low,Labour have no idea how to protect us and know nothing about defence,As you may have noticed, the Guardian has been a bit slow, and perhaps coy, about covering Labour MP Samantha Niblett’s plan for a “summer of sex”.

But not John Crace.He left nothing (well, not much) to the imagination as he explored the idea in his sketch.Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, has told MPs that the BBC’s plan to cut 2,000 jobs is a matter of “real concern”, Aletha Adu and Mark Sweney report.Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.On the first anniversary of the landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex, the campaign group that brought the original case has delivered a letter to the prime minister calling for action.

As reported earlier this week, the UK government has yet to approve EHRC guidance on the practical implementation of the ruling – essentially, whether trans men and women can continue to use services and facilities that align with their lived gender – and indeed the Equality and Human Rights Commission has just amended its original draft,Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister (and education secretary) said she wasn’t able to lay the draft before parliament for approval because we’re in an election period for devolved governments,Today For Women Scotland questions whether that’s really true, and calls on the UK government to take its lead from Scottish Labour,During the Holyrood campaign, leader Anas Sarwar committed to enforcing the supreme court ruling, and bypassing the EHRC guidance if necessary,In its letter, FWS says:double quotation markScottish Labour, like the Scottish Conservatives, has now committed to abide by the law and take action to rectify some of the egregious failures across public services in Scotland.

We would urge the UK government to be similarly robust and stand up for women’s legal rights.We are deeply disappointed that lies and obfuscation about the law continue to go unchallenged by your government.It’s understood that the EHRC’s amended draft lessens the impact on businesses and better balances the protection of single-sex spaces with the lives of transgender people.But it also has prompted anger from advocates of the supreme court’s decision, who criticised “horse-trading” between the EHRC and ministers.Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.

Paul Lewis, Henry Dyer and Pippa Crerar have the story,The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the SNP’s plan to cap the cost of some essential food items would be “risky” and could lead to shortages of these items,In his initial response to the SNP manifesto, David Phillips, head of devolved and local government finance at the IFS, says:double quotation markThe manifesto also pledges to establish statutory price ceilings on 20 to 50 essential food items, in order to prevent cost-of-living pressures from harming families’ nutrition,If these ceilings are set above market prices, the proposals could turn out to be toothless,But if these ceilings are below prevailing market prices, this proposal would be very radical and risky.

Unless there are specific anti-competitive reasons for elevated prices, ceilings could have the unintended consequence of creating shortages of these items, by causing demand to exceed supply.Indeed, suppliers or retailers could also deliberately restrict the availability of these items in Scotland.Products could also be reformulated to reduce production costs, which could adversely affect their quality.Higher prices often reflect spikes in the costs faced by producers, so a price ceiling may cause some of them to stop producing.The manifesto indicates that a framework to support Scottish producers would be put in place, but it is unclear what form this would take.

If it were financial support for producer when costs increased, then it would probably be more efficient for the government to redirect cash directly to households rather than to cap prices and support producers.In his overall verdict, Phillips makes a point that the IFS has been making about almost all the Welsh and Scottish election manifestos it has been scrutinising.double quotation markIn a pattern familiar by now from several other manifestos in the devolved elections, the SNP manifesto pledges additional spending – costing an estimated £1.4bn a year by 2031–32 – without credibly saying how it would pay for this.A large proportion is from assumed efficiencies – on top of the substantial savings already assumed in existing Scottish government spending plans.

More likely in reality, paying for these plans would require further tax rises or deeper cuts to lower-priority spending.According to new polling by YouGov, voters say the most important issue facing their area ahead of the local election is – potholes (and the state of the roads generally).Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, probably agrees.According to a Sun story by Martina Bet, her Mini had to be towed away after a breakdown caused when it hit a crater in the road “worthy of the moon”.Alexander blamed the Lib Dems, because they run the council in charge of the road where the accident happened.

There is a lot of scepticism about the SNP’s plan to cap the cost of essential food items in supermarkets amongst the online commentatiat,This is from the Financial Times’s political commentator, Stephen Bush,double quotation markNot content with beating Labour on perceived competence, economic management and leadership, the SNP have unveiled a bold new policy to outflank Anas Sarwar on “really really stupid responses to the global resource crisis”,James Ball, political editor of the New World, agrees,He has posted this on Bluesky