𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Angela Rayner will heap more pressure on Sir Keir Starmer’s floundering premiership by demanding “bolder action” in a major speech. The former Deputy Prime Minister, widely seen as a potential successor to Sir Keir, will say Labour must have a “bolder story” to sell to voters.

It comes as a bombshell new polling reveals Labour could lose close to 2,000 council seats in the forthcoming local elections, with voters furious over the winter fuel fiasco, the Channel migrant crisis, the Chagos Islands fiasco, the Peter Mandelson scandal, soaring taxes and the PM’s bid to water down Brexit. Modelling by More in Common shows Labour losing 1,597 seats in the best expected scenario and 1,738 seats in the worst case.

And Ms Rayner will increase pressure on the Prime Minister by backing a series of proposals from two different factions within the Labour Party: the Tribune group and the Labour Growth Group.

Louise Haigh and Chris Curtis, whose groups collectively represent nearly 200 MPs from across the party, told The Times the country “is not moving in the right direction” and that “Labour MPs are as hungry for change as the public”.

They will outline their approach at the Good Growth Foundation’s national growth debate on Tuesday. Ms Rayner is then expected to speak at the evening reception.

The pair said Downing Street had “too readily taken on the role of defenders of a broken system when the public rightly expect us to remake it”.

They said: “Where the government has been bold, Labour MPs have backed it and called for more. Where reform has stalled, it is largely because proposals came too piecemeal and too disconnected from any clear argument about what they were for. Labour MPs are as hungry for change as the public.

“Too often, the reforms the government has proposed have been disconnected from that wider argument. When politics loses its moral core, even necessary reform looks hesitant and managerial.”

More in Common highlighted Sunderland as the “clearest example of Reform’s threat to Labour in its heartlands”.

The city council has been run by Labour since its formation, but the latest modelling shows Reform would win the constituency of Sunderland Central if a general election were held now, with the party 12% ahead of Labour with 37% of the vote.

Luke Tryl, of More in Common, said the Greens are targeting a number of councils in London, including Hackney, Lambeth and Islington.

He said: “This should really be the ground zero for the Green surge.

“At the top end of our projections, they could do really well, benefitting from the sort of disappointed progressive vote in particular.”

Mr Tryl added that on a good night for the Greens, Labour could be reduced to “single digits” at Hackney council, which the party has dominated since the early 1970s.

Jury trials rebel Karl Turner has said trust in Sir Keir Starmer is disappearing by the day due to the Lord Peter Mandelson saga, as Labour MPs criticised the peer’s appointment.

Mr Turner, who had the Labour whip taken off him for his opposition to the Government’s justice reforms, asked the Prime Minister what he would do to restore trust in himself and Labour, ahead of local elections in just over a fortnight.

The MP for Kingston-upon-Hull East was joined by Labour former members of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet who asked why Lord Mandelson was appointed despite his track record.

Veteran left-wing MP John McDonnell also hit out at the Prime Minister’s former official, Morgan McSweeney, who had a close relationship with Lord Mandelson.

“What Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets,” Mr McDonnell said. He was heckled by members of the Cabinet as he spoke.

Mr Turner said: “Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House.

“But the reality is this ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment is political. The trouble that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister, and in politics, is diminishing as this sorry saga continues.

“So, in the 17 days we have leading to those very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?”

Mr McDonnell said: “On this side of the House, many will appreciate his apology today, but many of us will remain bewildered still why that appointment took place, despite the warnings that many of us gave.

“Isn’t the reality this: that when he sought to realise his ambition to become leader of the Labour Party, with very little base within the party, he became dependent on McSweeney and Mandelson and Labour Together to organise, fund his election.

“When he became Prime Minister the reward for McSweeney was control of Number 10, and for Mandelson the highest diplomatic office. The unspoken message to civil servants was what Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets.”

He added: “This has damaged the party that I’ve been a member of for 50 years.”

Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Independent MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, recalled the two occasions Lord Mandelson had to resign from Tony Blair’s cabinet in the 1990s and early 2000s.

“Peter Mandelson has a history,” she said. “What this House wants to know is why, knowing Peter Mandelson’s history, going back 30 years… it’s one thing to say, as he insists on saying, ‘Nobody told me. Nobody told me anything, nobody told me’. The question is, why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?”

The Prime Minister said he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson if he had known the peer had failed the checks and insisted there was no pressure from No 10 to push through the high-profile appointment.

Sir Keir fired Sir Olly from his role as the Foreign Office’s top official after finding out last week that Lord Mandelson had been granted security clearance despite failing the checks.

The Prime Minister faced accusations of lying to MPs by failing to set out the full picture around how Lord Mandelson was granted developed vetting (DV) status.

But in a statement on Monday, he denied misleading the Commons when he told MPs that the proper process was followed.

“I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the House should have had should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that’s why I’ve set out the account in full,” he said.