Morgan McSweeney does no lasting damage to Starmer in grilling by Emily Thornberry | John Crace
He walks! He talks! He breathes! For most people, Morgan McSweeney is a quasi-mythical creature,A being that exists almost entirely in the shadows,If at all,Away from the public gaze,The legendary slayer of the Labour left, rumoured to have been shaped in the dark arts by Peter Mandelson, who went on to become the eyes and ears of the prime minister.
Possibly even his brain.It was often said the only ideas Keir ever had were ones he had been force-fed by Morgan the Mighty.But on Tuesday morning, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff was forced out into the open, summoned to Westminster to give evidence to the foreign affairs select committee about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.McSweeney looked far from happy at the exposure.Head down, no eye contact with the public as he sped down the corridor.
Maybe he was worried about being out and about in daylight.The darkness has been kind to his skincare regime.He looks far younger than his 49 years.His nerves were evident.For someone who has reportedly left many bodies in his wake, he was surprisingly diffident.
For his opening statement about remembering the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and apologising for his lapse in judgement in recommending Mandy, Morgan kept his arms tightly crossed,As if worried they might make a break for the doors if left unguarded,His left eye occasionally twitched,His voice, a generic middle-class Irish accent with a hint of Cork and Scots, rarely raised much beyond a whisper,He could start a second career as newsreader for RTÉ.
The opening exchanges between the committee chair, Emily Thornberry, and McSweeney were unadulterated poison.The pair have history.Not to put too fine a point on it, they hate each other.Even when they are on their best behaviour, the mutual dislike is a darkness visible.Emily is part of the Labour leftwing Islington aristocracy.
Everything that Morgan despises.It was on his recommendation that Thornberry was not given the cabinet post of attorney general after the 2024 election.Emily had been waiting two years for her revenge.She was determined to take her time.This was her idea of fun.
For 15 minutes, she probed away, trying to establish that McSweeeney was nothing but a Mini-Mandy,Someone who would have always been a nobody had not Mandelson adopted him as his protege,A pet without a mind of his own,Just someone desperate to please,So when Starmer decided to make the Washington job a political appointment, Morgan had no hesitation in doing his reputed political daddy a favour.
McSweeney was horrified.He hardly knew Mandelson.Peter who? In fact, he wasn’t even sure if he had the right Mandelson.Whether this was the same one he had been out to dinner with.In any case, it had been Peter who had first suggested Peter to be ambassador.
Of course it had.It made perfect sense.Classic Mandelson.Never shy about any schmoozing or self-promotion.He even wondered whether he could do it part time so he could also be chancellor of Oxford University.
All that Morgan had done was suggest Mandelson would be better than the other two candidates,George Osborne and Bear Grylls,Not much of a choice there,Any of us would have been better than George or the Bearster,We didn’t get to find out whose bright idea it had been to put two duds on the selection panel.
But it had all the hallmarks of a McSweeeney black op.For the rest of the two and a half hour session, McSweeney more or less held the party line.At the very least, he didn’t land Keir in it.Though he did stretch belief a bit by suggesting that Starmer was in possession of free will and had acted independently of him at all time.Nor could he quite explain away the original sin.
Why – leaving aside questions of process and pressure – Morgan had thought it was OK to recommend a friend who was known mates with the world’s most notorious paedophile,I guess we’ve all been there,There’s mates and then there’s hanging out in flats of mates,Morgan said it had been “a knife to the heart” when he had discovered the depth of Mandy’s friendship with Epstein,Or, to the rest of us, Peter being Peter.
Again.That’s his USP.Hiding in plain sight.What McSweeney really wanted us to know that at heart he was just one of us.A decent bloke with a big heart doing a decent job.
A man dedicated to public service.If he had a fault, it was that he was too trusting.Had just assumed if there had been really that much iffy about Mandelson, then it would have been picked up by direct vetting.After all, Morgan was all heart.That’s why he had recommended Matthew Doyle to be an ambassador.
Because he had a duty of care after getting him the sack,It’s the way things roll in No 10,Earlier in the morning, we had had Philip Barton, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, the one who was sacked before Olly Robbins got sacked – keep up – in front of the same select committee,Philip was a collector’s item because he is a firm believer that Yes Minister is an audiovisual version of the civil service code,Luckily for Starmer, Barton didn’t do any lasting damage to Downing Street’s insistence that the prime minister hadn’t misled parliament or pressurised the Foreign Office into expediting vetting, largely because Philip found it almost impossible to answer any direct question.
He speaks fluent mandarin.A language only understood by senior officials in his own department.His family can’t understand a word he says.By far his most interesting revelation was that a good permanent secretary would never make the mistake of telling their minister anything.Everything is on a need to know basis and only he needs to know.
Never let a foreign secretary anywhere near classified information.You could be at war within hours.And you had to conclude Barton had a point.Imagine if Boris Johnson had been told anything.That just left Kemi Badenoch to lead off the debate to refer Starmer to the privileges committee.
As so often, she misread the crowd,The prime minister hasn’t misled parliament,It’s his judgment that’s the issue,But ploughed on regardless,Any Labour MP who voted against was probably a paedophile.
“It’s definitely not a stunt,” she shouted.“It’s not a stunt.” Except it was.One that was bound to fail.For Kemi it was just a question of hoping to get some mud to stick.
US supreme court hears whether smartphone location data warrants infringe users’ privacy
The US supreme court is considering whether sprawling warrants for smartphone location data infringe on Americans’ privacy rights and violate the constitution.Justices heard opening arguments in Chatrie v United States on Monday that concerned law enforcement’s reliance on so-called “geofence warrants” in difficult cases. The case was originally brought by Okello Chatrie, whose phone location data helped police in Richmond, Virginia, track him down after he robbed a bank at gunpoint and escaped with $195,000 in 2019. Chatrie pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but his lawyers argue none of the evidence against him should have been admissible in court.A lawyer for the US Department of Justice argued that nearly any actions taken in public while in possession of a smartphone afforded no expectation of privacy
Elon Musk and Sam Altman face off in court over OpenAI’s founding mission
A trial between two of Silicon Valley’s biggest tycoons kicked off on Monday in California, the culmination of a years-long bitter feud. Elon Musk has accused Sam Altman of betraying the founding agreement of the non-profit they started together, OpenAI, by changing it to a for-profit enterprise.Jury selection began at a federal courthouse in Oakland with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding. As she began, she assured the dozens of prospective jurors that this trial wasn’t going to be highly technical, despite it centering around artificial intelligence. “This is just a case about promises and breaches of promises, it won’t get technical at all,” she said
If it’s only AI that’s keeping you up at night, maybe you’re doing OK | Letters
Reading Alexander Hurst’s column on the frictionless experience of life promised – or threatened – by AI algorithms, I was struck by how little I recognised the picture he painted of daily experience being stripped of the friction necessary to furnish it with meaning (To be human is to live with friction. That’s something AI boosters will never understand, 23 April). Rather, isn’t it the case that, bar the mega-rich, we’re all suffering from an excess of friction due to rising living costs, an avoidably dilapidated public realm, poor housing and innumerable related stresses?I belong to a volunteer group that twice a week cooks hot meals for homeless and destitute people in central Liverpool. The hot meal they collect from us may be the only relief they get that day from the constant, grinding analogue hassles of invisibility, illness, disrespect and material poverty: the only recognition they receive that a degree of comfort is a prerequisite for survival. The specific depredations of AI, created and encouraged by men without souls, seem so distant in these cases as to be nonexistent
Musk and Altman’s bitter feud over OpenAI to be laid bare in court
The bitter rivalry between two of the tech world’s most powerful men arrives in court this week, as Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI heads to trial in Oakland, California. The case is set to feature some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, and its outcome could affect the course of the AI boom.Musk’s suit, filed in 2024, focuses on the formative years of OpenAI when he, Altman and others co-founded the artificial intelligence company as a nonprofit with a grand purpose.“OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,” reads the company’s mission statement, published in late 2015
UK departments at odds over energy demands of AI datacentres
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that
Cannes AI film festival raises eyebrows – and questions about future
In Cannes’ darkened screening rooms, the supposed future of cinema flickered into life this week and it was strange. The first edition of the World AI film festival (WAIFF) showcased visions of men with fish scales erupting from their necks and seaweed from their mouths, a heroine with a heart beating outside her body and so many massed armies of AI-generated tanned men sweeping across battlefields that David Lean would have blushed.Last week the Cannes film festival, entering its 76th year, banned the emerging technology from its Palme d’Or competition, insisting “AI imitates very well but it will never feel deep emotions”. But this week the Croisette was taken over by the upstart AI film movement and their big-tech backers amid increasing investment and attention from the Hollywood studios. A “nouvelle vague”, they said, is coming
‘My life changes on one shot’: Joe Johnson on snooker glory, Princess Diana and his seven heart attacks
Sabastian Sawe’s sub-two marathon feat is the Roger Bannister moment of our time | Sean Ingle
Indigenous players back St Kilda coach Ross Lyon after comment deemed ‘casual racism’
Guardian Sport and Jonathan Liew win top prizes at SJA Awards
Paige Bueckers says relationship with Azzi Fudd ‘nobody’s business but our own’
Gay and Bedingham ace Durham’s chase against Lancashire: county cricket, day four – as it happened