The Government faces a deepening credibility crisis after polling revealed three quarters of the British public believe Sir Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff fabricated a mugging to conceal correspondence with Peter Mandelson.
Morgan McSweeney reported his mobile device stolen following an alleged incident on a London street on 20 October last year, preventing disclosure of communications with the peer who was subsequently dismissed over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
More in Common polling suggests widespread disbelief transcends party lines, with 70 per cent of Labour’s own supporters concluding the theft probably never occurred. The figure rises to 80 per cent amongst Conservative voters, 73 per cent of Liberal Democrats and 74 per cent of Reform UK supporters.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson mounted a robust defence during an appearance on Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, accusing critics of peddling “conspiracy theory” whilst dismissing questioning as “rubbish” and “hyperbole.”
“Morgan McSweeney was mugged, reported it to the police, followed all of the processes that were asked of him,” Ms Phillipson stated. “I do think some of this wider coverage is drifting into conspiracy theory territory here.”
However, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch characterised the circumstances as “extremely fishy,” questioning why Mr McSweeney allegedly failed to inform police of his senior governmental role when filing the theft report.
“This is the man who advised the appointment of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, something we’ve now seen has been a huge cover-up,” Mrs Badenoch told the same programme. “This is not a conspiracy theory. Questions need to be answered and he should come into Parliament and explain what happened.”
Parliament voted in February to compel publication of tens of thousands of documents aimed at establishing what officials knew regarding Lord Mandelson’s connections to Epstein before the peer received appointment as Washington ambassador.
The device’s disappearance means exchanges between Mr McSweeney and Lord Mandelson during the period preceding the latter’s appointment—and subsequent removal following Epstein revelations—cannot be examined by parliamentary investigators.
Ms Phillipson insisted Mr McSweeney “has done what was asked of him” and “will provide and is providing any material that is required,” though the missing communications remain permanently unavailable.
The polling findings suggest the incident has become emblematic of broader public distrust towards Government transparency, with even Labour’s electoral base expressing overwhelming scepticism about official accounts.
