Politics
What steel tariffs reveal about the cost of going it alone
Jun Du and Oleksandr Shepotylo argue that, with the UK and EU set to impose major new tariffs on steel imports, the UK would benefit from seeking to coordinate its trade defence policy with the EU.
In March 2026, the UK government announced its new Steel Strategy. From July, tariff-free quotas for steel imports will be cut by 60% and a 50% tariff will apply to above-quota imports — matching US tariffs imposed last year. The US first raised steel tariffs to 25%, then doubled them to 50%. The UK was exempted from the doubling of the rate under the Economic Prosperity Deal.
The UK’s aim is to shield domestic producers from a global market awash with overcapacity, now estimated at 602m tonnes and forecast to reach 721m by 2027. But the policy matters well beyond the steel sector itself. It is being implemented at precisely the moment the UK–EU relationship is being renegotiated, and at the moment the European Commission is proposing to double its own out-of-quota steel tariff to 50% and cut tariff-free quotas by nearly half. Around 80% of UK steel exports are destined for European markets, so the EU decision is potentially more consequential for UK producers than the US one. How the UK should position itself within – or outside – that emerging European regime is a live question, and the evidence now exists to answer it.
In a new paper from the Centre for Business Prosperity at Aston University, we estimate the effects of the 2025 US steel and aluminium tariffs using large-scale product-level trade data and employ the Kiel Institute’s general equilibrium model for the policy impact evaluation.
US steel imports fell by around 20%, aluminium by around 10%, and the doubling of tariffs doubled the trade shock. But the costs did not remain at the border, with 70-80% of the tariff hit passed through to downstream buyers, including the firms that use steel as an input. US consumer prices for the covered products rose by approximately 27% for steel and 32% for aluminium.
The impact on UK exports was far from uniform across products. Aerospace components alone account for 43% of UK steel and aluminium exports to the US, and absorbed the shock almost entirely through volumes, with prices held firm by long-term contracts and certification requirements. Automotive inputs followed a similar pattern. Commoditised products, such as hot-rolled coil and steel plate, by contrast, adjusted by cutting their margins by 21-23%, with foreign exporters accepting lower profits to hold on to market share.
There is also evidence that the tariffs chilled new trade relationships without destroying established ones. The probability of a new bilateral, UK-US export relationship forming fell by 0.8 percentage points, while exit rates among existing exporters were essentially unchanged. The damage is done quietly, in the trade that never begins.
These findings matter for the UK because the government is about to impose a tariff of the same magnitude on its own border. The 300,000 workers in downstream steel-using industries (automotive, aerospace, construction, fabricated metals) outnumber the 30,000 in primary steelmaking by ten to one. It is the downstream industries who will absorb the cost, through higher input prices and, ultimately, through prices in the shops. This is a cost-of-living issue as much as an industrial one.
The government is three months from implementing a 50% above-quota tariff with no published impact assessment. The pass-through estimates, the scale of downstream exposure, and the chilling effect on new exporters ought to feature in any serious evaluation.
The more striking finding for the UK–EU debate comes from the general equilibrium modelling. Under current conditions (the UK on a 25% US tariff, most competitors on 50%), preferential access to the US market is worth approximately £482m a year. That is a real gain. But it is structurally fragile: it exists only while the differential holds, it is subject to US review, and it could be withdrawn at any point.
More importantly, the modelling shows what happens when the EU acts. When the EU imposes its own steel tariffs alongside the US, the UK’s gain edges down. Coordinated European trade policy provides a cushion the UK cannot replicate alone.
The UK-EU ‘reset’ has so far delivered limited economic results, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor have made clear that they want to pursue greater alignment with the single market at the next UK-EU summit, in the hope of delivering greater economic benefits.
Much of the discussion around alignment focuses on regulatory standards: SPS, product safety, emissions trading. Trade defence policy is at least as consequential, and inseparable from the regulatory alignment now being discussed for industrial goods such as cars and chemicals. The steel evidence suggests that, in a world of escalating tariff conflicts between major blocs, a key question for a medium-sized economy is whether it can afford to conduct trade defence policy alone, absorbing the costs without the benefit of collective action. The chilling effect on new trade relationships means the answer is being shaped now, invisibly, in the export links that never form.
The case for coordination, though, does not rest solely on cushioning against shared losses. The UK and the EU have complementary strengths in technology, scale and industrial capability that, combined, could build competitive advantage rather than merely defend against disruption. In a geoeconomic landscape where the US, China and the EU are all reshaping trade around strategic interests, the opportunity is to develop joint approaches to competitiveness. That means shared investment in low-carbon steel production and coordinated standards that create scale advantages, alongside trade instruments designed to build industries rather than simply protect them. This is a different proposition from alignment as damage limitation and is the conversation the reset ought to be having.
None of this is to dismiss the strategic case for domestic steel capacity — with production at its lowest since the 1930s, there is a legitimate argument for maintaining capability for defence, infrastructure and the energy transition. But our results price that choice: they show what downstream sectors and consumers will pay for tariff-based protection, so that the strategic decision can be made with its costs in view.
Steel is an unusually clean test case. What it reveals is that the costs of going it alone are quantifiable, and that the gains from coordination could extend well beyond loss reduction — if the ambition is there to pursue them.
By Jun Du, Professor of Economics at Aston Business School and Founding Director of the Centre for Business Prosperity, and Oleksandr Shepotylo, Associate Professor at Aston Business School. The paper, ‘Steel and aluminium tariffs: impact assessment for the US, UK, and broader markets’, is co-authored with Yujie Shi and Lisha He.
The Masafer Yatta community of Umm al Kheir, has learned that they will be barred from attending their own demolition hearing in the South Hebron Hills of the occupied West Bank. According to the Higher Planning Committee of the Israeli occupation’s Civil Administration, who will be holding the hearing in the illegal settlements of Beit El, this is because of “security considerations“.
‘They do not want to hear the truth’
The Israeli occupation will prevent residents of the village from attending the proceedings, which are due to take place on 28 April.
Only legal representatives are allowed to be present at the hearing, which concerns demolition orders threatening the whole community. The hearing will also consider a master plan proposed by the village as a path to preventing these demolitions.
Khalil Hathaleen, head of the Village Council in Umm al Kheir, tells the Canary:
They have prevented residents from attending court because they do not want to hear the truth. They just want to please the settlers and demolish our historic village. Why don’t they hear us in court? Isn’t that our right? I don’t know how they think, but we feel wronged, criminalised. Why don’t they demolish the new settlement neighbourhood they built four months ago?
96 structures in Umm al Kheir are at risk of demolition, which would make all 300 residents, including women and children, homeless. It is deeply troubling to exclude these Palestinians from a court process, which will determine the fate of their homes and community – and essentially, their lives.
Settlers continue stealing land from Bedouins
Demolition orders and threats of displacement have been ongoing in Umm al Kheir for years. Settlers, who have the full support and protection of the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have stolen almost all of Umm al Kheir’s land. Since 2007, more than 100 structures have been demolished in the village.
A new outpost, established only a few metres away from the village’s community centre, has not only left these Bedouin families with the constant threat of settler violence, but also nowhere to graze their livestock – their only source of income.
Hathaleen says:
We are going through a very difficult time. We call on everyone to help stop this crime against us.
The community is calling on journalists, human rights organisations, and citizens around the world to take notice of the court’s decision tomorrow. Whatever the outcome, Hathaleen says the residents of Umm al Kheir will not give up, and will keep resisting the constant harassment, intimidation and violence designed to uproot them from their land.
They plan to follow all legal paths to halt the demolitions, and also work with the media to draw as much attention to the injustices the Israeli occupation continues to bring down upon them.
Ongoing displacement since the Nakba
The descendants of the families living in Umm al Kheir originated in the Negev. They were dispossessed of their land during the violent establishment of “Israel” in 1948, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, or catastrophe.
Zionist militias forcibly displaced and expelled an estimated 750,000 Palestinians from their homes during this time, and destroyed and depopulated over 500 villages. Most of the Palestinian population turned into refugees.
These Bedouins migrated to the area of Masafer Yatta. They legally purchased the land where they are now living in Umm al Kheir, but the Israeli occupation considers all structures in the village to be illegal. This is because they were built without permits – something almost impossible to obtain from the Zionist regime.
More than 3,770 Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes in the occupied West Bank in 2025. This was due to Israeli occupation, home demolitions, settler violence, and access restrictions. These included Palestinians from 13 rural communities, which were completely wiped off the map.
Featured image via Médecins Sans Frontières
By Charlie Jaay
The UK is having a series of balmy spells thanks to the direction of the jet stream and a stubborn area of high pressure.
These conditions have led to what the BBC called a weather “traffic jam”, though we have seen some cooler climes recently.
This week, the Met Office has predicted 24°C temps in parts of the UK during the upcoming May bank holiday weekend, too.
Here’s where those temperatures are expected, when, and how long it’s expected to last.
When will it be hot in the UK this May bank holiday weekend?
Today (Tuesday 28 April), the Met Office said we can expect a slight dip from yesterday’s warmer weather. Highs of 19°C are expected.
But, “From midweek, high pressure brings a return to largely dry and fine weather.” That means that though we can expect some wind in the southeast, on Wednesday, 29 April and Thursday, 30 April, generally, the weather will be dry and fine across the UK.
Later on Thursday and leading into Friday, 1 May, though, the weather will become more “changeable,” with “thundery bursts” predicted, despite hotter temperatures.
According to Met Office Deputy Chief Forecaster, Tom Crabtree, “It will feel warm and humid in parts of England on Friday, with temperatures potentially reaching 24°C… Into the Bank Holiday weekend, the weather looks more changeable, with showers at times – particularly in the north – but also some sunnier intervals.”
Broadly, though, the weekend is expected to be colder and wetter than our finer midweek weather.
Where will it reach 24°C in the UK this weekend?
On Friday, 1 May, these may occur “in central and southern areas”, per the Met Office.
Northern areas are likelier to experience showers, meanwhile.
The weather service stressed that these conditions can change, and we’ll know more closer to the date. Check your local weather service for the most accurate information.
When will the sunshine end?
In their long-range forecast, the Met Office said that there’ll be an “increasing chance of showers or longer spells of rain, along with some strong winds at times” starting from Saturday, 2 May.
However, temperatures are predicted to be slightly higher than normal.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
With warmer weather and longer days here at last, something about that sudden burst of energy it gives you makes it very tempting to give your whole house an overhaul.
If you’re itching to do a big spring clean but aren’t sure where to start, here’s a list of the best budget-friendly (if not the most exciting) buys to help make the whole thing 10 times easier.
Open the windows, get your favourite playlist on, grab your cleaning essentials and your home will be sparkling in no time.
UNISON has hit back at criticism of upcoming strike action at Ash Field Academy. The union, which represents the vast majority of support staff at the Evington SEND school, announced a week in advance that staff would walk out on 30 April, 13 May, and 14 May over the victimisation of UNISON rep Tom Barker.
The Ash Field Academy dispute
Barker has been suspended since October 2025 on unspecified allegations. Discovery Schools Academy Trust (DSAT), the multi-academy trust which operates Ash Field Academy, imposed the suspension just days after UNISON members had voted to strike over DSAT-imposed staffing cuts.
Barker was a central figure in organising this strike ballot, and in encouraging members to use their vote. This was just the latest chapter in Barker’s long-standing work to organise for UNISON at the school. More details of this history are below.
UNISON believes that Barker’s record of successfully supporting and advocating for members at Ash Field Academy is the reason for his suspension. The union made this clear to DSAT soon after the suspension, and has repeatedly called for his reinstatement. The Trust has repeatedly refused this.
DSAT counter claims
DSAT claims that the suspension is due to allegations unrelated to Barker’s trade union work. After almost six months of suspension, DSAT has still not presented any evidence of wrongdoing – nor even detailed the allegations against him. Yet Barker is still suspended and UNISON members are still being deprived of their workplace rep.
UNISON consulted members at Ash Field Academy about how they wished to respond to the suspension. They voted to try petitioning the employer, and filing a grievance demanding Barker’s reinstatement, and to hold a ballot for strike action if those attempts failed.
DSAT refused to act on the petition, and refused to formally hear the grievance. So members had no option but to consider strike action.
In a March strike ballot of UNISON members at Ash Field Academy, 87% of participants voted to take strike action over Barker’s suspension and the attack this represents on their rights. The only demand UNISON is making is that Barker is reinstated. Doing so would cost DSAT nothing.
The upcoming action is a result of this ballot. DSAT was notified of the result several weeks ago, giving it fair warning that if they did not reinstate Barker, strike action would follow. To date, it still hasn’t reinstated him.
Barker’s history of UNISON organising
Barker has worked at Ash Field Academy as a Teaching Assistant for close to ten years. He’s been a UNISON steward for seven years.
In 2023, Barker was a principal organiser of an 8-month long dispute. It ultimately won pay increases of between 18% and 25% for student facing staff after the revelation that Ash Field Academy leaders, despite claims to the contrary, were underpaying the workforce. This was one of the most successful education disputes in UNISON’s history.
In the same year, alongside parents, students, and UNISON members, Barker helped organise a campaign to defend the residential provision at Ash Field Academy, ‘Resi’, which was under threat by Leicester City Council.
When Ash Field Academy Trust joined DSAT in early 2024, Barker, working alongside other UNISON reps, successfully defended members against cuts to pay and conditions.
In 2025, Barker and his Ash Field Academy fellow members defeated DSAT’s attempts to cut around 10% of the support staff.
In addition to these examples of his collective leadership, Barker has also been a fearless advocate for members on an individual basis. Barker has represented many members during HR processes, where he has fought tirelessly for their interests.
Sam Randfield, UNISON Leicester City branch secretary, said:
UNISON believes that Tom is being victimised because of his record in effectively representing and advocating on behalf of UNISON members at Ash Field Academy. This attack on Tom is therefore an attack on the collective rights of all members at Ash Field.
If DSAT is successful in victimising Tom, all members – not just in UNISON, but other trade unions too – could suffer in the future. We cannot allow DSAT to get away with attacking trade union reps because they don’t like their history of organising.
We have given DSAT ample opportunity to back down from their position. They have refused every request to reinstate Tom. Despite his willingness to cooperate with the investigation into the unspecified allegations against him, they insist on keeping Tom suspended.
That is why our members have been left with no option other than to take strike action. We call upon DSAT to immediately reinstate Tom. That is UNISON’s one and only demand.
An Ash Field Academy UNISON member who wishes to remain anonymous said:
The Trust has said repeatedly in communications with the press that it supports the legal rights of trade unions. That is not our experience.
I believe Tom is being scapegoated for his work on behalf of union members at the school.
The last thing we want to do is negatively impact the lives of our students and their families. But the truth is that striking appears to be the only language the Trust responds to.
Last year, the Trust cut around 10% of support staff at Ash Field. They did this against our protests. We said we are already understaffed and struggling to support our students.
It was not until we won a strike ballot that the Trust agreed to reverse this decision. Why do we always need to make threats for them to listen?
Not only is getting rid of Tom wrong morally, it will do immense harm to our ability to defend services against attacks from the Trust. That’s why I am striking.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
Politics
Super El Nino: What Weather Experts Say About Weather Phenomenon And How It Could Impact UK
This year, multiple weather experts have predicted an El Niño by midsummer.
Some think it could even become a “super El Niño”.
But what does that mean, and how could it affect the UK?
What is an El Niño?
An El Niño happens when the surface of the Pacific Ocean heats up by 0.5°C or more.
During a super El Niño, though, temperatures rise by 1.5-2°C, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at UCL, Prof Bill McGuire, told HuffPost UK previously.
During both regular and “super” El Niños, extreme weather events like drought and flooding are much more common.
“Broadly speaking, the bigger the El Niño, the greater its impacts on the world’s weather,” Prof Bill McGuire said.
El Niños can also heat up the world as a whole. The 2023-24 El Niño heralded record-breaking temperatures across the globe in 2024.
“The cost of weather disruption caused by the super El Niños of 1982-83 and 1997-98 has been calculated as being in the trillions of dollars,” Prof McGuire added.
Usually, the most immediate results are seen in countries on or near the Pacific, like Australia, Indonesia, Peru, Ecuador, and the Philippines.
How would an El Niño impact the UK?
In the short term, the effects of El Niños tend to reach us a little later than those in the middle of the event.
It might make our summers a little hotter. It could also make our winters a lot colder, though that’s not a given.
But Prof McGuire said the longer-term impacts might be more significant here, even though the UK’s experience of El Ninos typically “lags” behind other countries’.
“A super El Niño later this year is likely to see the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times smashed again, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see both this year and next breaching the 1.5°C dangerous climate change guardrail,” he said.
That would affect the UK, as experts have cautioned that going over 1.5°C of global warming could lead a million more square miles of permafrost to thaw.
That might mean sea levels could rise from one to three feet by the end of the century, devastating coastal communities. That may bring about mass displacement and conflict.
Though the UK might not see the most extreme results of the possible super El Niño the fastest, the weather phenomenon could have truly global consequences.
The Premier League’s allocation of European places is straightforward in principle but fluid in practice.
League positions will determine most spots, while the outcomes of the Europa League and Europa Conference League can add or reassign places.
Recent results have opened realistic pathways for as many as 10 English clubs to play in European competitions next season, and there are credible routes for six to reach the Champions League.
What would create six Champions League places from the Premier League?
Two scenarios produce a sixth Champions League entrant.
The simplest is an English winner of the Europa League who finishes outside the top four, that club would take a Champions League berth in addition to the usual top four qualifiers.
Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa meet in the Europa League semi-finals, guaranteeing an English finalist and therefore a plausible English winner.
If that winner finishes outside the top four, the Premier League will have six Champions League representatives next season.
A second, less likely route is a combination of domestic and European cup outcomes that shifts places down the domestic table.
Either way, the key point is that continental success by an English club can increase the number of Champions League slots given to the Premier League.
How nine or 10 teams becomes possible
The Europa Conference League winner gains direct entry to next season’s Europa League.
Crystal Palace is in the Conference League semi-finals and are the most likely English side to lift that trophy.
If Palace win the Conference League and an English club also wins the Europa League, the knock-on effects would push additional Premier League teams into European competitions, potentially taking the total to nine.
If the Europa League winner is also outside the top six domestically and Palace win the Conference League, the Premier League could reach the ten-team mark in Europe next season.
The domestic picture and immediate triggers
Manchester United’s recent results have put them close to securing a top four finish, at the time of the latest update they required only a small number of points to confirm Champions League qualification.
That domestic stability matters because it fixes several of the league’s European slots and clarifies which positions would be affected by continental winners.
Meanwhile, the battle for sixth and seventh, remains tight. Brighton, Fulham, Bournemouth, Chelsea and Brentford are all involved and fighting for success.
The FA Cup’s role
The FA Cup winner affects which league positions feed into the Europa League and Conference League but does not change the total number of English teams in Europe.
If a club already qualified for Europe wins the FA Cup, the European place tied to the cup transfers down the league table.
That means the identity of the cup winner can affect whether seventh or eighth place in the Premier League gains continental football.
Practical takeaway for clubs and supporters
For clubs chasing European qualification, the message is simple, secure league position where possible and treat the remaining cup competitions as opportunities rather than complications.
For supporters, the permutations are worth following because a single result in Istanbul or Leipzig can alter the landscape for a dozen clubs.
The mechanics are indeed technical, but the outcome is binary. Domestic form locks in most places; European trophies can add one or two more.
The next few weeks will resolve which of these scenarios becomes real.
Featured image via the Premier League
By Faz Ali
With Morgan McSweeney summoned for questioning before the foreign affairs select committee today, the Peter Mandelson scandal continues to decimate the ailing Starmer administration.
There are now calls for a public inquiry into Labour Together, the think tank used by McSweeney to propel his favoured candidate into power.
Labour Together continues to receive funding from Israel lobby
On 17 April, current director Allison Phillips, apparently eager to break with the McSweeney legacy, declared that the organisation would be changing their name and no longer backing Labour leadership candidates or donating to individual MPs.
However, away from the Whitehall soap opera, many are ignoring the fact that Labour Together continues to operate as a limited company. Indeed, last month alone, they raked in another £500,000.
On March 3rd, David Sainsbury made a £125,000 donation to Labour Together. This was preceded by another £125,000 payment on December 3rd. Under Tony Blair, Sainsbury was reportedly seated “at one of the top tables” at a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) fundraising event.
In October, David Sainsbury made two separate £20,000 cash payments to Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s Education Minister. Phillipson, another LFI supporter, has received money from pro-Israeli lobbyists Stuart Roden and Trevor Chinn.
Phillipson has also previously accepted a £3,000 donation from ELNET, who list the Israeli Foreign Ministry as one of their “partners”. A 2024 ELNET delegation to the Israeli state was led by Jeffrey Epstein’s “best pal” Peter Mandelson. When Mandelson was later installed as US ambassador, Starmer told him:
After many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side.
Bridget Phillipson’s unsuccessful bid for Labour deputy leader was backed by the Jewish Labour Movement. JLM’s national chair, Ella Rose-Jacobs, previously worked for the Israeli Embassy. Their vice-chair, Izzy Lenga, reportedly participated in military training with the IDF.
Sainsbury’s further contributions
In October, Sainsbury gave a £44,400 “non-cash” donation to Starmer’s chief secretary Darren Jones. Jones previously received over £57,000 “in kind” from Labour Together. He also received “in kind” support from intelligence firm Hakluyt, a former employer of Olly Robbins.
On June 7th 2024, one day after Starmer’s election, the Labour Party registered a payment of £2.5 million from David Sainsbury. More recently, he has been a key financer of Labour Together. Apparently, the McSweeney-Simons scandals have done little to halt operations.
Another person still funding Labour Together is Sainsbury’s daughter, Francesca Perrin. On March 31st, she gave the organisation £100,000. This year, Perrin has also given two Labour MPs £30,000: Wes Streeting aide Zubir Ahmed and JLM-backed David Pinto-Duschinsky.
Perrin has funded several high-ranking Labour MPs in the last few months. Bridget Phillipson received £15,000. Josh Simons £30,000. Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood were given £50,000 each. Shabana has also been a major beneficiary of Labour Together support.
Like Epstein-associate Peter Mandelson, Starmer also wanted to give Matthew Doyle an ambassador job. In 2013, Doyle spoke at an event organised by Labour Friends of Israel. The event was supported by another lobby group called “We Believe in Israel”, led by Luke Akehurst.
Starmer is a liar
Last week, Lindsay Hoyle ejected MPs Lee Anderson and Zarah Sultana from the House of Commons for calling Starmer a liar. The Speaker’s father, Douglas Hoyle, was a co-founder of Labour Friends of Israel, a lobby group that refuses to reveal its donors. McSweeney concealed over £730,000 in Labour Together donations.
For years, Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together operated in the shadows. Labour Friends of Israel director Michael Rubin said:
Morgan was essential in dragging Labour back to sanity.
With dead duck Prime Minister Starmer talking about leading Labour into the next election whilst MPs plot behind his back, “sanity” is the last word I would use.
Featured image via the Canary
Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has spoken out over the government’s controversial decision to hire Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US for the first time.
He was today scrutinised by MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee over the ex-Labour peer’s appointment.
McSweeney resigned from his senior role in February this year, taking full responsibility for encouraging the prime minister’s to hire Mandelson despite his known links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer’s premiership now hangs in the balance after the Guardian reported Mandelson had failed his security vetting – but was still hired as the government’s attache to Washington.
Here’s what we learned from McSweeney’s lengthy evidence session.
1. McSweeney Calls Mandelson’s Appointment A ‘Serious Error Of Judgement’
In his opening remarks, McSweeney immediately took responsibility for supporting Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, calling it “a serious error of judgment.”
He said: “The prime minister advice relied on my advice and I got it wrong.”
2. McSweeney Insists He Did Not Try To ‘Push Anything Through’
The former senior aide said he did not tell anyone to ignore advice from vetting officials when it came to Mandelson.
He claimed he made a recommendation based off his judgement of Mandelson’s “experience, relationships and political skills”.
He said: “What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate, explicitly or implicitly, the checks should be cleared at all costs.”
“Like everyone else, I could see there was pros and cons in the appointment and I worried that it would go wrong so I didn’t try to push anything through,” he added.
3. Mandelson Would Not Have Got The Job If Harris Won The US Election, McSweeney Says
“I don’t think the prime minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president,” McSweeney said.
He said there would have been a wider range of candidates to choose from if the Democrats had won the presidential election because of the “nature of the relationships available”.
McSweeney later said his “top concern” was the UK-US trade deal, and Mandelson’s previous experience as European Commissioner was seen as an advantage there.
4. Starmer Was Thinking of Giving Mandelson Plum Ambassador Job Even Before He Was Elected As PM
McSweeney told the MPs that as early as January or February 2024, months before Labour’s landslide election victory, the party told the civil service he was considering making Mandelson a political appointment to the White House.
5. Mandelson Put His Own Name Forward For The Top Role
Amid speculation about where the idea of Mandelson’s appointment came from, McSweeney said it stemmed from the ex-Labour peer himself.
“I think the first person who put Mandelson’s name forward was Mandelson,” he said, as he reportedly made it very clear “he was interested in the job”.
He added that he thought Mandelson’s appointment would have been in “the national interest”.
This was not some hero I was trying to get a job for,” he said, while also disputing suggestions Mandelson was his “mentor” – calling him a confidante instead.
6. Discovering The Reality Of Mandelson’s Epstein Links Was ‘A Knife Through My Soul’
McSweeney said he was under the impression Mandelson’s Epstein friendship was a ‘passing acquittance’ – until emails published by Bloomberg unearthed the depth of their relationship last September.
He said what then emerged was “not the relationship I was led to understand it was – it was very, very, very different”.
McSweeney described finding out reality as a “knife through my soul”.
“The nature of the relationship that I understood he had with Epstein was not a close friendship,” he said.
“How I understood it at the time was a passing acquaintance that he regretted having, and that he apologised for.
“What is emerged since then was way, way, way worse than I had expected at the time.”
7. McSweeney Suggests Mandelson Was Not Honest With Him During Initial Questioning
McSweeney said: “When I look back on it, I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I’d asked PET [the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team] to ask those follow up questions.
“I guess my thinking at the time was if I put follow-up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the truth and the full truth.
“I didn’t feel that I got that back from him.
“But it wasn’t my decision. It was the prime minister’s decision and he saw the DV [developed vetting] as part of that decision.”
However, he later said he felt Mandelson was telling the truth when they first spoke.
McSweeney claimed he only realised it may not have been the “full truth” when the later revelations came up.
8. False Claim He Swore At Officials Caused Him ‘Great Deal Of Stress’
The Foreign Affairs Committee previously discussed claims that McSweeney had told the Foreign Office to “just fucking approve” Mandelson’s appointment.
However, former chief of the Foreign Office Philip Barton dispelled the rumour on Monday.
“This swearing rumour is it is something that has caused me a great deal of stress for a number of months,” McSweeney later said.
“I do not know why people do this in politics, put around untrue rumours.
“They phone lots of journalists. Those journalists then phone lots of politicians … It’s damaging for people’s reputations. And I think it’s unfair for staff who can speak for themselves.”
9. McSweeney ‘Surprised’ Foreign Office Did Not Get Epstein Files From US
He said: “One of the things that subsequently surprised me – I would have assumed that, and maybe they did – but I would assume that our Foreign Office would have been in contact with us counterparts to see what information they held on him.”
He said there is “no way” Mandelson would have been appointed as ambassador if the government knew the full depth of his friendship with Epstein.
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
Politics Home | Morgan McSweeney Says Mandelson’s Friendship With Epstein Was “Knife Through My Soul”
Morgan McSweeney appeared before MPs in parliament on Tuesday
4 min read
Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff has described the moment when he realised the depth of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein as having “a knife through my soul”.
Speaking on Tuesday, Morgan McSweeney said he initially believed that Mandelson was telling the truth about the extent of his relationship with the paedophile financier ahead of being appointed UK ambassador to the US, but then realised in September 2025 that he “didn’t get the full truth”.
It was in September when Bloomberg published correspondence between the pair that further evidenced the depth of their friendship.
“The nature of the relationship that I understood he had with Epstein was not a close friendship,” said McSweeney, giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
“How I understood it at the time was a passing acquaintance that he regretted having, and that he apologised for.”
He added: “What has emerged since then was way, way, way worse than I had expected at the time.
“And it was when I saw the pictures, when I saw the [Bloomberg revelations] in September 2025, I have to say it was like a knife through my soul.”
He told the committee that he regrets not asking the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team (PET) to probe Mandelson’s appointment more extensively before he was appointed as US ambassador.
“When I look back on it, I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I’d asked PET to ask those follow-up questions,” he said.
“My thinking at the time was, if I put follow-up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the truth and the full truth.”
He also insisted that there was no “improper” pressure put on the Foreign Office by Downing Street while he was there to formalise Mandelson’s appointment.
“There’s a world of difference between saying we want to go quicker and saying we want to be reckless. One is proper. We want things done quickly. The other is wholly improper.
“Nobody in No in 10 ever thought it would be appropriate to skip steps,” he said.
In a rare public appearance, McSweeney gave evidence to the Emily Thornberry-led committee as part of its look at the decision by Prime Minister Keir Starmer to appoint Mandelson as the UK’s most senior diplomat in Washington.
McSweeney, a close ally of Starmer, resigned from his Downing Street role in February amid growing pressure over the decision to appoint the peer despite his links to Epstein.
His appearance also comes ahead of a House of Commons vote later on Tuesday on referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee on the question of whether he has misled Parliament about the process by which Mandelson was appointed.
Starmer has apologised for the original decision to appoint Mandelson but insists that due process was followed throughout the process.
Appearing before the committee earlier this morning, Sir Philip Barton, the former chief civil servant in the Foreign Office, said No 10 had shown an “uninterested” attitude towards Mandelson’s security vetting.
In his opening statement, McSweeney referenced the victims and survivors connected to Epstein’s crimes and apologised to them, adding that they were often forgotten in the middle of political stories and drama.
“Women and girls were abused, exploited and scarred. They deserved protection then, and they deserve to be remembered now. I am sorry for any part this controversy has played in causing further hurt or distress,” he told MPs.
He admitted that recommending Mandelson’s appointment was a “serious error of judgement”.
“I advised the Prime Minister in support of that appointment, and I was wrong to do so.”
McSweeney argued that, ultimately, the primary problem in his appointment was that Mandelson withheld key information from Starmer about his relationship with Epstein.
He denied the suggestion that the former cabinet minister was a “hero” and “mentor” to him, explaining that he felt Mandelson’s experience as an EU commissioner made him particularly suited to the task of helping secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.
McSweeney also said Mandelson probably would not have been appointed to the role if President Trump had lost the election to Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in November 2024, and revealed that the two leading candidates for the role were Mandelson and George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor.
McSweeney also sought to play down the significance of Mandelson’s influence in the Labour government.
While he admitted that he was in Downing Street during the September cabinet reshuffle and texting him his thoughts, he did not respond, and none of his suggestions ended up happening.
Text messages between the pair will soon be released in the next tranche of files as part of a separate investigation into the Mandelson appointment.
Germany’s chancellor has declared America is being “humiliated” by Iran over negotiations to end the war in the country and reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz.
Friedrich Merz said he “can’t tell what strategic exit the Americans are pursuing” exactly two months after the conflict began.
A ceasefire is currently in place, but there is little prospect of an imminent peace deal being reached.
Meanwhile, the key waterway the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, while the US is blockading Iran’s ports.
Donald Trump last week called off planned peace talks which had been due to be held between American and Iranian officials in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, insisting they were a waste of time.
Posting on Truth Social, he said: “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call.”
But Merz said: “At the moment I can’t tell what strategic exit the Americans are pursuing, especially since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skilfully, or perhaps very skilfully refusing to negotiate, and are letting the Americans travel to Islamabad only to send them back home empty-handed.
“An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so called Revolutionary Guards.”
Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s highly-respected chief international correspondent, has said any peace deal “will take a long time” to be reached because “neither side wants to back down”.
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Towson Apple Store employee union strikes back, allege unfair treatment after closure
6 Money Mistakes to Avoid Before You Sleep | Smart Financial Habits#shorts#youtubeshorts
an astoundingly skilled painter returned to her rightful place in the spotlight
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Tech20 hours agoRegister Renaming | Hackaday
-
Crypto World3 days agoHyperliquid $HYPE Rally Builds Momentum as AI Sector Enters Prove-It Phase
-
Politics6 days agoMaking troops accountable for war crimes threatens US alliance, ex-SAS colonel warns
-
Politics6 days agoDisabled people challenge government SEND proposals over segregation concerns
-
Business5 days agoPatterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (PTEN) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Business6 days agoRolls-Royce Voted UK’s Most Iconic Trade Mark as IPO Register Hits 150
-
Crypto World7 days agoFive Value Stocks with Recovery Potential in 2026: PayPal (PYPL), Nike (NKE), and More
-
Sports2 days agoIPL 2026: Ruturaj Gaikwad registers slowest fifty of the season, enters all-time unwanted list | Cricket News
-
Politics16 hours agoDrax board avoid their own AGM, accused of greenwashing & environmental racism
-
Crypto World7 days agoNew York sues Coinbase, Gemini over prediction market offerings
-
Politics6 days agoStarmer handler McSweeney to be dragged from shadows by Foreign Affairs Committee
-
Politics6 days agoZack Polanski responds to home secretary’s taser threat
-
Politics6 days ago
Wings Over Scotland | How To Get Away With Crimes
-
Business6 days agoHCL Tech share price tank over 9% after weak Q4. JPMorgan, HSBC & 3 others cut target price
-
Crypto World7 days agoCrypto’s great hope in Senate’s Clarity Act still has a path to survive tight calendar
-
Politics6 days ago‘Iran is still a nuclear threat’
-
Fashion7 days agoKilkenny Design New Beauty Arrivals for Spring 2026
-
Sports5 days agoTim Bradley names the current best in the world: “Better than Inoue and Usyk”
-
NewsBeat2 days agoLK Bennett closes all stores after entering administration
You must be logged in to post a comment Login