Andrew Curry

Extraordinary overreach. What are they thinking? They're going to arrest the people driving pensioners and priests to a protest where they intend to hold up a sign? People who give them water? People acting as legal observers?

This is an outrage. I will do everything in my power to prevent Morgan McSweeney from being elevated to the House of Lords. I believe there is simply no way he can be considered a fit and proper person, having broken the law for years, and I will place all the evidence at my disposal (including the very substantial new disclosures made to me by Labour Together and other parties) before the House of Lords Appointment Commission. It is now incontrovertible that McSweeney was aware of his legal duties to report donations as required by law to the Electoral Commission while company secretary of Labour Together - but that he failed to do so for two years. I believe that there is compelling evidence that McSweeney chose not to report donations in violation of the law, and that he used these undisclosed donations to procure political power for himself, his allies, fellow directors of Labour Together and Sir Keir Starmer. I have now received disclosures showing incontrovertibly that McSweeney was consulted on and received a copy of the despicable, defamatory APCO Worldwide report that targeted me, my family my colleagues and other journalists because I was revealing McSweeney's history of unlawful conduct and how his unlawful conduct benefited Sir Keir Starmer. I have also received, in the last weeks, confirmation that APCO's disgraceful report on me and others was sent to the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office, in plain violation of my rights under data protection laws, is now refusing to reveal precisely how it was transmitted, to who, when and for what reason. This is a patent cover-up by the Cabinet Office. It is utterly inappropriate that the man who helped make Mandelson the ambassador to the US, after engaging in years of dishonesty and unlawful conduct on his own account, should be given a lifetime sinecure deciding our laws. Although it will challenge constitutional convention, Burnham should refuse McSweeney's appointment. At the very least he must refer it to the Appointment Commission. Could there be a more fitting, disgraceful denouement to Starmerism? And will Burnham have the backbone to do the decent thing? Or will he allow his administration to be tainted by the sins of his predecessor?