If there is a Commons debate tomorrow on allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs about Peter Mandelson’s vetting for his appointment as ambassador to the US, it may coincide with Keir Starmer chairing a meeting of the government’s Cobra emergency committee to discuss the economic consequences of the Iran war. A scheduling clash like that would allow No 10 to make the argument that Starmer is focusing on important issues that matter to voters while the opposition is obsessed with Westminster procedure (although Downing Street would prefer the privileges inquiry debate not to go ahead in the first place).

Starmer announced the Cobra meeting in his speech to the Usdaw conference.

He got perhaps his loudest applause during the speech when he confirmed that the UK will not be joining the US war against Iran. He said:

Whatever happens in the Middle East, we’ve cut your energy bills, and we have capped them until July.

Delegates, that’s another thing that I will always stand firm on. I will never let this country be dragged into a war that is not in our interests. Never.

As the applause died away, Starmer went on:

That is a lesson British politics should have learned a long time ago with Iraq.

And yet, when the rush to war began on Iran, I was heavily criticised by others who had no thought for the consequences for our country, for your family.

But that is not how I operate, because I have working people in my mind’s eye for every decision.

And yet, delegates, I have to level with you about Iran because the truth is the economic consequences could still be with us for some time. You don’t have to be a politician to know that. You can see it on every petrol forecourt across the country …

We are monitoring this daily. So, delegates, for example, tomorrow I’m chairing a meeting in Cobra on the impact, bringing in people from the Bank of England, so you can be sure we will stand by working people in this crisis.

Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, was on interview duty on behalf of the government this morning. Speaking on Sky News, she accused the Tories of playing “silly political games” with their call for a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer.

Ten days ago we had Kemi Badenoch and other members of the opposition saying that the prime minister deliberately misled parliament.

He didn’t, and that was categorically proven last week, and they’ve accepted that. He has not lied to parliament.

So I do think that the opposition – guess what, 10 days out from local elections and important elections in Scotland and Wales – are playing silly political games when we should be talking about the big issues at stake in the country here.

Reynolds refused to say whether the government would whip its MPs to vote against a motion calling for a privileges committee inquiry if a vote on this proposal goes ahead.

Labour has a working majority of 165 and, if it does whip against the motion, it should be able to block it very easily.

But privileges committee motions like this are normally considered ‘house’ matters appropriate for a free vote, and Keir Starmer may decide not to whip the vote. In those circumstances, most Labour MPs would probably vote against an inquiry anyway – on the grounds that the Tory lying allegations against Starmer are spurious. The Tories would then accuse them of a cover-up.

Keir Starmer will claim this morning that the tide “could be turning” in the battle against shoplifting. He is due to speak at an event outside London and, according to the No 10 overnight briefing, he will say:

Working people, grafters – go to work, do the right thing, keep our high streets thriving, and yet too often they are abused or assaulted by people who think they can get away with it and just cheat the system. It’s disgraceful.

We are currently reforming the police across the country so we can free up their time and their money to focus more on street policing, neighbourhood policing, and cracking down on anti‑social behaviour. We’ve already got an extra 3,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, and there’s more to come.

We’ve scrapped the ridiculous regulation where thieves stealing goods worth less than £200 would not be properly held to account. That was a shoplifters’ charter, and we’ve ended it. We’ve toughened up punishment too. We’re giving police stronger powers, making the abuse and assault of retail workers a specific crime and giving you the same protections as emergency workers.

I’m not blind to how big a challenge this is. But the number of people charged has gone up by 17% in the latest stats. Shop theft is down – only slightly – but the tide could be turning. We are taking action. We are calling time on the free‑for‑all, standing firm, together, against the disgraceful crime of shop theft.

Simon Goodley has more on this story here.

Good morning. Kemi Badenoch is trying to get Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, to give MPs a vote on a proposal to get the Commons privileges committee to investigate allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs in statements he made to them about the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Other opposition parties may be backing her, but we don’t know for sure because the process is relatively secret; MPs have to write a private letter to the speaker, who then decides whether this is a serious request that should be decided by the Commons as a whole, or a frivolous complaint that should be ignored. (We do know that Karl Turner has written to the speaker about this too, but only because he was daft enough to post his letter on social media last week.) Today we are likely to find out whether or not Hoyle is agreeing to a Commons vote.

Boris Johnson was referred to the privileges committee over allegations that he lied to MPs about Partygate (allegations the committee concluded were justified). Badenoch wants to make the case that Starmer is just as dishonest as Johnson. He isn’t, by any stretch, and the claims that Starmer lied to MPs about Mandelson are spurious; they relate to contest intepretations of political language of the kind that are commonplace in parliamentary debate. But the fact that this has even become a live consideration for the speaker is a big win for the Tories.

If Hoyle does allow a debate, which would probably take place tomorrow, Badenoch will count that as a success whether the referral motion passes or not. If Labour MPs vote against an inquiry, she will be able to accuse them of a cover-up. If MPs approve an inquiry (because Labour decides not to use its majority to block the motion), then Starmer faces the ignominy of being in the same category as Johnson (at least unless or until an inquiry eventually clears him).

So the best option for No 10 is for Hoyle to not allow a vote in the first place. And that perhaps explains why some Labour grandees have been out condeming the call for an inquiry in the first place.

Alan Johnson and David Blunkett, who are both former home secretaries, have given a joint statement to the Times describing the proposals for a privileges committee inquiry as a “nakedly political stunt”. They say:

The fact that Kemi Badenoch has changed the accusations she is levelling against the PM on an almost daily basis as her claims have failed to stand up to scrutiny shows what this is really about. This is a nakedly political stunt with no substance ahead of the May elections.

Any comparison with Boris Johnson is absurd. When parliament referred that matter to the privileges committee, a police investigation had directly disproved his categoric statements that he knew nothing about the breach of lockdown rules.

And, on the Today programme this morning, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee, also dismissed the proposal. Asked if there was a need for an inquiry like this, she pointed out that her own committee is already looking at this, and she stressed that the government is about to publish more documents about the Mandelson appointment. She said:

I suppose our constituents might ask [if a privileges committee goes ahead], have we got the balance right between holding the government to account and seemingly squabbling amongst ourselves when there is so much else going on that perhaps parliament ought to be focusing on as well?

Asked if she was saying ‘not yet’ in relation to a privileges committee inquiry, Thornberry replied:

I have to say, a really truthful position is, why the rush at the moment? Has it got anything to do with local elections?

It may be that at some stage in the future, some of the questions haven’t been answered, and it is decided that they are of sufficient importance that the privileges committee should be involved, but I don’t really see why we’re doing it at the moment, apart from, potentially people trying to score points in advance of the local elections.

I’m sorry to say that, and I’m not supposed to be partisan on this, but it is as plain as the nose on my face what’s going on here.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Reform UK is organising what it is calling a “national fuel protest” in Whitehall calling for action to cut petrol prices. (There don’t seem to be any plans to protest outside the US embassy.)

10.30am: John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scottish first minister, speaks about the SNP’s first 100 days priorities if they win the Holyrood election. At a separate event, Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is launching his party’s manifesto for women.

Morning: Keir Starmer is in the north-west of England where he is giving a speech on shoplifting.

Morning: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Essex.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Lunchtime: Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, is highlighting Green plans to bring bus services under public control.

2.30pm: If Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, does decide to allow a vote on referring Keir Starmer to the privileges committee, he is likely to tell MPs as Commons business starts.

2.30pm: Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3pm: Peers debate the crime and policing bill, and the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, as the parliamentary ‘ping pong’ process continues.

After 3.30pm: And MPs debate the English devolotion and community empowerment bill and the pension schemes bill as part of the ‘ping pong process’. Later they may vote on Lords amendments to the crime bill and the children’s wellbeing bill.

Afternoon: MPs vote to carry over into the next session two bills: the Northern Ireland Troubles bill, and the public office (accountability) bill (aka, the Hillsborough bill).

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.