Labour MP joins Tories in suggesting full truth about McSweeney’s stolen phone not being told

The Conservatives are continuing to suggest that Morgan McSweeney has been engaged in some sort of conspiracy to dispose of his mobile phone, and stop parliament getting hold of his messages with Peter Mandelson. Yesterday Kemi Badenoch said “it is only right that Morgan McSweeney testifies in Parliament and explains exactly what happened”. And this morning Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, told Sky New that “the whole thing is as smelly as a fish market on a hot summer’s afternoon”.

Referring to claims that McSweeney’s account of how he had his phone stolen (meaning the messages potentially cannot be recovered) and that the police did not investigate it propertly, Griffith went on:

double quotation markIt just doesn’t compute, does it? I worked in Number 10. Briefly, I had a Number 10 phone. There was a paranoia about devices like that falling into other people’s hands.

And so whether it was the Met Police, whether it was Morgan McSweeney, and what sounds like pretty evasive set of reporting, even when you look at that transcript, or whether it was the Number 10 security team following up something that at the time they could not have been sure had not been taken by a state actor, a phone with all sorts of government secrets potentially in it, that’s precisely why people in government have two separate phones.

Griffith worked in No 10 for Boris Johnson, who reportedly told the Covid inquiry that it could not read messages on one of his phones because he had forgotten his password. Perhaps this explains why Griffith is sceptical about explanations from No 10 figures about why phone messages cannot be obtained.

Keir Starmer has said that the idea that McSweeney was engaged in a plot to dispose of the phone is “far-fetched”. Others are more dismissive, suggesting the Tories have gone into full conspiracy theory mode. There is precedent for this; last year Badenoch and her team spent several weeks pushing the theory that Jonathan Powell, the PM’s national security adviser, has intervened to get the CPS to drop the China spy case, before they eventually gave up after an inquiry by a parliamentary inquiry found no evidence at all to support the claim.

But it is not just the Tories who think there is something fishy going on.

Last night the Labour MP Karl Turner posted these on social media, accusing McSweeney of lying when he told the police his phone had been stolen.

double quotation markI don’t believe McSwindle had his iPhone stolen

double quotation markHonest believe, Matt. It’s smacks of the liar Johnson defence of ‘lost all my WhatsApp messages’. We mustn’t take the public for fools. And I am afraid this smacks of too convenient by far. I won’t do it. I will say what I actually think. And I don’t believe it. End of!

double quotation markI believe the report was made. McSwindle didn’t mention that he was the chief of staff to the PM. A significant omission of he’d wanted the police to prioritise the offence.

Turner is an outspoken MP who is willing to go much further than his colleagues in saying things that are provocative. But this morning he has received partial backing from Richard Burgon. He has tabled some parliamentary written questions about McSweeney’s phone which suggest he does not think the full truth is being told.

I’ve submitted these formal Parliamentary Written Questions following reports that Morgan McSweeney’s phone was stolen.

Given the serious impact this could have on getting the truth about the Mandelson scandal (and even on the Labour Together scandal), we need answers. pic.twitter.com/uUKZxCMuVC

— Richard Burgon MP (@RichardBurgon) March 26, 2026

Burgon is a leading figure in the Socialist Campaign group in parliament, which represents leftwingers, and he was a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour left hate McSweeney because he masterminded the Labour Together operation to destroy Corbynism, and some respects Burgon’s intervention might be best understood as a new instalment of Labour internal feuding.

Share

Key events

No 10 says it’s ‘categorically untrue’ to say McSweeney’s phone theft linked to Mandelson humble address

Downing Street has firmed up its insistence that there was no link between Morgan McSweeney’s phone being stolen and the humble address motion passed by MPs saying messages with Peter Mandelson would have to be exchanged.

When asked about this this morning, Keir Starmer said:

double quotation markThe idea that somehow everybody could have seen that sometime in the future there’d be a request over the phone is, to my mind, a little bit far-fetched.

But, at the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said that it was “categorically untrue” to claim there was a link between the theft of the phone and the humble address requiring the disclosure of messages between Peter Mandelson and government ministers and officials.

The spokesperson said:

double quotation markThe point the prime minister was making was that the idea that the theft was connected to the humble address is categorically untrue.

We’re committed to complying with the humble address in full. All government departments, ministers and relevant individuals been asked to provide all the relevant information they hold in the scope of the humble address.

This denial is unlikely to silence those alleging a conspiracy, some of whom are alleging the phone was never stolen in the first place. (See 11.30am.)

McSweeney reported his phone stolen in October last year, more than three months before the humble address motion was passed. But there have been reports saying that even then at that point, in the light of the fact that Mandelson had recently been sacked over his links with Jeffrey Epstein, officials in No 10 were starting to worry about a humble address motion being table at some point down the line. A humble address is a Commons mechanism forcing the government to release information.

The spokesperson would not discuss what action was taken by No 10 to disable McSweeney’s phone after it was reported missing last year, or what impact that might have on attempts to retrieve message. He just said that Downing Street responded to the incident in line with procedures that were “longstanding and robust”.

The spokesperson did not challenge the Guardian report saying some messages between McSweeney and Mandelson have been retained.

Asked about this, the spokesperson just said that it was the government’s intention to comply with the humble address motion (requiring the publication of these exchanges and others) “in full”. The government has already published one set of documents required by the humble address. Another tranche is expected relatively soon, but the spokesperson would not say when. And some documents are being held back pending the police investigation into Mandelson.

Share



#Labour #joins #Tories #suggesting #truth #hidden #Morgan #McSweeneys #phone #politics #live #Politics