DAN HODGES: Our PM is lying about McSweeney's missing phone

I don't know for certain what really happened to Morgan McSweeney's mobile phone. But after another day of obfuscation, deflection and outright deceit from the Prime Minister and Downing Street, this I do know for a fact: Keir Starmer is lying his posterior off about what happened to his former chief of staff's mobile.

Yesterday Starmer made his first comments on the mysterious – and from his perspective, highly fortuitous – disappearance of the device that likely held numerous messages capable of ­shedding light on the scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson's appointment as Washington Ambassador.

'It was stolen. It was reported at the time and the police have acknowledged and confirmed that that is what happened', he opined. Then added, 'the idea that ­somehow everybody could have seen that sometime in the future there would be a request for the phone is, to my mind, a ­little bit far-fetched'.

It's that second observation, the ­widely-quoted 'far-fetched' line, that has Sir Keir bang to rights. If, as we were initially told by Government ministers on Sunday, McSweeney's mobile had been snatched a full year before the Mandelson scandal broke, Starmer would have been correct. Nostradamus himself would have struggled to foresee the subsequent chain of events.

But as has now been proven, that initial claim was false. McSweeney's phone was actually reported stolen on ­October 20, over a month after Mandelson had been forced to step down from his role as Ambassador over the saga. And by that stage, the potential significance of McSweeney's messages was apparent to everyone. Including Keir Starmer himself.

On September 17, six days after Mandelson's sacking, the Commons rose for the Autumn recess.

But within Downing Street, over the parliamentary break, anxious officials were trying to develop a strategy to contain the fall-out from the political crisis. Specifically, several meetings were held to 'game-out' what would happen if the Tory Party opted to submit a 'Humble Address', a parliamentary procedural device that could be used to force the Government to release documents and messages relating to Mandelson.

Yesterday I spoke to a former government adviser with ­knowledge of those meetings. They told me explicitly 'one of the things that was discussed was 'what to do if they come for Morgan's messages'.

So Starmer didn't need Nostradamus to foresee the future. His aides were already doing that for him. And desperately looking at ways to stop McSweeney's messages falling into the Tories' hands when parliament returned. With Sir Keir's full knowledge and consent. According to one official, 'Keir knew everyone was worried about Badenoch pushing for the messages. He was briefed on it in case she asked him straight out if he would release them'.

On October 13, the House of Commons reconvened for its new session. And seven days later, McSweeney's mobile vanished into the night. So yes, there are indeed many aspects of this case that are 'far-fetched': the increasingly ludicrous and incredible excuses being proffered by the Prime Minister, his Ministers and his advisers.

Take, for example, Downing Street's explanation for how the theft of McSweeney's mobile was dealt with. Initially the line No.10 had spun was that, upon ­receiving the 999 call detailing the 'theft', the Met had simply ticked their boxes, handed out their crime ­reference number and declared the case utterly unsolvable.

But then the Met released the call log. And it revealed Morgan McSweeney had provided the wrong location for the theft.

When the Met call-handler repeated the wrong location back to him, he failed to correct her. In addition, he failed to mention he was the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. He failed to mention the mobile that had supposedly been snatched was one of the most sensitive phones in the British government. When the police followed up on the case with not one, but two, calls in the following days, he failed to respond to them.

Most fantastically, when the 'theft' was reported, the Government security team reportedly did not even bother to contact the Met. On Wednesday I spoke to a former Government official who had been subject to the street theft of their mobile. And they explained the process.

First, they contacted the No.10 security team. The team disabled the phone, and began to monitor the tracking device within it. They then contacted the Met on the official's behalf, explained the significance of the offence, and provided tracking information.

The official then contacted the Met, who reassured them they had been informed about the sensitive nature of the device, and confirmed the details of the incident. Then – and this is crucial – they dispatched an officer to the device's location. In the end it was a block of flats, and they were unable to narrow down the phone's precise position. But as the official told me 'they took it really seriously, and continued to follow up over the next few days'.

Join the debate

What does the handling of the missing phone say about trust and accountability in our leaders today?

Comment now

The person I spoke to was senior in government. But nowhere near as senior as the Prime ­Minister's Chief of Staff. Yet, as they said, 'the security team and police wanted to try to make sure it was a random theft, not a ­targeted operation by the Russians or Chinese'.

As I wrote earlier in the week, Keir Starmer and his government are taking us all for fools.

Because this is the story that they genuinely want us to swallow: Peter Mandelson resigned in the midst of one of the biggest domestic and international political scandals for a generation.

Downing Street strategised over how to contain the crisis, including how to manage a demand for the publication of the McSweeney/Mandelson emails. A couple of weeks after those strategy sessions, McSweeney's mobile happened to be snatched, and the messages lost for good.

Read More

DAN HODGES: If this is what Starmer standing up to Trump looks like, God help us when he caves

What's more, at the moment of the theft, the police were given the wrong location for the crime. The victim didn't even bother to explain he was the Prime Minister's most senior adviser. Or that the device contained some of the most sensitive information in Government.

Even though the phone contained a tracking device, no attempt was made to monitor it, or identify the location of the phone. No police officers were deployed in pursuit of it. Indeed, the Government's own internal security team did not even bother to liaise with the police in an attempt to secure its recovery.

And despite the fact MPs had passed a specific motion ordering the publication of all messages relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment, this incident was withheld by Keir Starmer from Parliament for over five months. It was withheld from the Press. And was withheld from the British people.

The Prime Minister would have us believe this is all one massive coincidence. In the days and weeks to come will we be asked to believe it is all a coincidence other sensitive phones have vanished, other crucial messages have been deleted and other vital emails have been eaten by the dog?

Far-fetched? What's far-fetched is that Britain is currently ­governed by a Prime Minister who seriously believes people will actually fall for this rubbish.