Transcript
A (0:00)
This is the Guardian.
B (0:08)
Today. Keir Starmer and the never ending Peter Mandelson saga. It's a long established rule of British government that if a minister says something false or misleading in the debating chamber, they have to return to correct the record.
A (0:28)
Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
B (0:31)
On Monday afternoon, it was Keir Starmer's turn.
C (0:34)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I'd like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our Ambassador to the United States.
B (0:45)
Standing up before during MPs storm, insisted he hadn't lied previously when he'd said that that full due process had been followed. It was the Foreign Office, he said, that had misled him by not telling him that Mandelson had failed vetting procedures.
C (1:01)
It's beggar's belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government.
B (1:15)
If he'd known, he said repeatedly, he would not have appointed him.
C (1:19)
This was not a lack of asking, this wasn't an oversight. It was a decision. It was a decision taken not to share that information. On repeated occasions, the opposition were not convinced the Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post.
B (1:40)
Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions
C (1:42)
he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus.
A (1:49)
He says he had no idea. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power.
B (2:00)
Has Starmer done enough to silence calls for him to step down? And what does all of this tell us about his judgment and his authority as the Prime Minister? From the Guardian, I'm Helen Pitt. Today in Focus, can Starmer survive the Maddelson scandal? Jonathan Freeland, welcome back to Today in Focus.
A (2:22)
Good to be with you, Helen.
