Keir Starmer has told Labour MPs to \u201cstick together and fight together\u201d as ministers launched a massive operation to shore up his fragile position before a critical day for his premiership.<\/p>\n
The prime minister faces the double threat of a standards investigation into his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US and potentially damaging testimony from Morgan McSweeney<\/a>, his former chief of staff.<\/p>\n Allies including Richard Hermer, the attorney general, and Jenny Chapman, a Foreign Office minister, were among those who rang round Labour<\/a> MPs before Tuesday\u2019s Commons vote on whether to refer him to parliament\u2019s privileges committee.<\/p>\n Senior Labour figures including Gordon Brown and former cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Blunkett called for restraint from backbenchers, dismissing the vote as a political stunt designed to destabilise the party before the May elections.<\/p>\n The Guardian understands that Labour MPs will be whipped to vote against the Conservative motion to refer Starmer to the committee. Any rebellion is likely to be limited because most appear to accept that, while there is anger towards the prime minister, they do not want to hand the opposition a win.<\/p>\n However, Starmer faces a second moment of jeopardy on Tuesday with McSweeney\u2019s appearance in front of the foreign affairs committee (FAC) inquiry into Mandelson\u2019s appointment.<\/p>\n While McSweeney, who left government<\/a> over the row, has said he takes \u201cfull responsibility\u201d for advising Starmer to appoint the former ambassador, he is likely to face questions<\/a> over whether due process was followed, including whether he put pressure on the Foreign Office over Mandelson.<\/p>\n He is also expected to be questioned over who in No 10 had argued that Mandelson did not require vetting at all, and on the theft of his official phone shortly after Mandelson was sacked as ambassador over his links to the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.<\/p>\n Philip Barton, who ran the Foreign Office before Olly Robbins \u2013 the top official sacked by Starmer last week \u2013 will also give evidence, and will be asked whether McSweeney told him to \u201cjust fucking approve\u201d the appointment.<\/p>\n In a further development, a letter from Ian Collard \u2013 the director of security who briefed Robbins \u2013 to the FAC on Mandelson\u2019s vetting revealed on Monday night that he had not seen the document which recommended security clearance was denied.<\/p>\n Instead, he received an oral briefing from officials who told him it was \u201coverall \u2026 a borderline case\u201d that could be handled through \u201crobust risk management\u201d. He admitted he felt under pressure to deliver a \u201crapid outcome\u201d to the case, but that it did not have an impact on his final judgment.<\/p>\n In an attempt to bolster support among his own MPs, many of whom have been dismayed by the Guardian\u2019s revelation<\/a> that Mandelson was installed as ambassador despite failing security vetting, Starmer addressed the parliamentary party before the vote.<\/p>\n \u201cI have responsibility for being totally transparent with you, with parliament and the British public,\u201d he said. \u201cI take that very seriously as well.<\/p>\n \u201cBut this is not about a lack of transparency. This is a political stunt by our opponents who want to bring us down, obscure our message, stop us getting on with our work. And the timing tells you everything, nine days before local elections \u2026 Tomorrow is pure politics and we need to stand together against it.\u201d<\/p>\n Downing Street took the unusual step of releasing a letter from Chris Wormald, the former cabinet secretary, to Starmer last September in which he concluded that \u201cappropriate processes were followed\u201d during Mandelson\u2019s appointment.<\/p>\n The Tories have also questioned the prime minister\u2019s claim that there was \u201cno pressure whatsoever\u201d applied on the Foreign Office over the affair, when Robbins had said there was<\/a>.<\/p>\n No 10 has said his comment referred specifically to the security vetting process rather than the broader appointment of Mandelson. Knowingly misleading parliament is considered a resigning offence for ministers.<\/p>\n