Kiran Stacey is the Guardian’s policy editor.

MPs from all sides condemned the Israeli attack on Hamas in Qatar during an urgent question in the Commons, with several criticising the prime minister for pressing ahead with his plans to meet Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president.

Abtisam Mohamed, the Labour backbencher, asked:

Why are we meeting Israel’s President Herzog today when his own words, and those of Prime Minister Netanyahu show a complete disregard for international humanitarian law?”

Kim Johnson, another Labour MP, referred to comments by Herzog in October 2023, when the Israeli president claimed “the entire [Palestinian] nation out there” was responsible for the 7 October attacks.

How does the minister justify the genocidal comments of President Herzog?

These individuals must be held accountable. This is not diplomacy, it is shameful complicity … Today’s meeting with Herzog should never have taken place.

Even MPs loyal to Starmer urged the prime minister to use his meeting with Herzog to condemn the Israeli government and its action in Qatar.

Emily Thornberry, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, who is also running for the deputy leadership of the Labour party, said:

There is an emboldened far-right Israeli govt who believe they can do whatever they like and there won’t be any consequences … In what way will the prime minister be able to convey such a message to President Herzog this afternoon?”

Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, said:

Today of all days, after an illegal attack on peace brokers Qatar, it is shocking to see the UK put out the red carpet for President Herzog, who dehumanised Palestinian suffering and incited violence against civilians.

Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, defended the visit, saying Starmer would use it to talk about practical concerns such as evacuating civilians from Gaza and getting aid into the region.

President Herzog is the head of state. He is not a functional part of the government, he is an important conduit to raise these concerns.

The foreign secretary sought this morning amongst other things to ensure greater support from the Israeli government in order to get children with injuries, in order to get students out. These are difficult, practical matters on which we are focused.

A Conservative party spokesperson issued this statement after PMQs.

Keir Starmer was in complete disarray at PMQs.

There are clearly questions he refuses to answer, because it appears he knew that Peter Mandelson had an intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and still chose to appoint him to one of our country’s most important diplomatic and economic roles.

The prime minister has put his party, and his friend Mandelson above our national security. Only full transparency will now suffice. Starmer must immediately publish all documents related to Lord Mandelson’s appointment.

The claim that having Mandelson remain as ambassador to the US could compromise national security echoes what Ed Davey suggested at PMQs when he asked if the White House had further “compromising material” on Mandelson that could, Davey implied, by used by Donald Trump as leverage. (See 12.23pm.)

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson would not discuss in detail what Keir Starmer knew about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he appointed him ambassador to Washington. But he stressed that the pre-appointment vetting was “extensive” – implying No 10 did know quite a lot about this.

The spokesperson said:

We have been very clear that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein are at the forefront of our minds, he was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.

On the appointment process, any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to extensive vetting and background checks by the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office as a matter of course.

Asked if Starmer was surprised by the latest revelations, the spokesperson said that Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein “has been a matter of public record for some time and the ambassador himself has repeatedly addressed questions on it”.

That is the first PMQs that Kemi Badenoch can clearly be said to have “won”. She has held her own with Keir Starmer quite often, but in any discussion on domestic policy she is at a colossal disadvantage, because the record of the previous Tory government is so poor. Even a first-rate parliamentarian would struggle with the deck of cards she has been dealt, and she is not in that league.

But today Badenoch had an easy target, and she clobbered it effectively. As Tony Blair discovered (twice – there were two resignations), defending Peter Mandelson is sometimes just impossible. Both of those incidents involved Mandelson’s dealings with the wealthy, but by the standards of today’s scandals they were relatively innocuous. Jeffrey Epstein’s moral depravity was on a wholly different scale. No wonder Starmer was wriggling.

Badenoch started by asking Starmer what he knew about the Mandelson/Epstein friendship when he appointed him ambassador to the US. Starmer brushed this off with a routine answer about due process, and Badenoch then followed that up with a reference to a complicated story in today’s Telegraph about Epstein being consulted by Mandelson over the sale of a business part owned by the UK government, when Mandelson was dealing with it in his capacity as business secretary and after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. She said:

The Daily Telegraph reports today, that while Lord Mandelson was business secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, while he was business secretary. And that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the prime minister really think it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?

Starmer continued to rely on the “due process” defence, but it was not really working and eventually he resorted to accusing Badenoch of messing up her questions last week, when she failed to interrogate him much on Angela Rayner. Starmer’s best moment came in his final answer.

Our deputy leader contest started this week and ends on October 25. Their leadership contest has been going on for months.

But by then the damage had been done.

Does this matter much? It is hard to say at this point. Mandelson isn’t ambassador to the Vatican. He was appointed to establish a good relationship with Donald Trump, who isn’t an Epstein-type paedophile sex trafficker but who isn’t a moral paragon either, and by all accounts Mandelson is doing that part of the job remarkably well.

But the Epstein association is utterly corrosive. (Even Trump, who is shameless in most things, can recognise this, which presumably is why he has been willing to defy his Maga base over the Epstein files.) Starmer did not sound overly-supportive of Mandelson, and so it is possible a slew of further revelations could cut short his Washington career. If that were to happen, Badenoch would claim the scalp.

Starmer condemns Reform UK from taking advice from an expert who has made “shocking and baseless claims that vaccines are linked to cancer”. He goes on:

These dangerous conspiracies cost lives, but it shows that Reform cannot be trusted with our NHS.

Stephen Flynn (SNP) asked why the Israeli president was being invited to Downing Street. He said Isaac Herzog was someone who “called for the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and who signed the artillery shells that destroyed their homes, their families and their friends”.

Starmer replied:

We have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza. We have sanctioned extremists. We suspended trade talks.

But the point he raised is a very serious one. We all want an outcome that ensures peace, that the hostages get out, that aid gets in under a two-state outcome. It is the only way we will get peace in a region that has suffered conflict for a very, very long time. I will not give up on diplomacy – that is the politics of students.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, urges Starmer to reduce the bureaucracy faced by family carers when they are looking for help from the government.

Starmer agrees this should be simplified.

Davey asks about Mandelson, and asks if Starmer has asked him if there is any other compromising information that could be used against him.

Starmer says due process was followed with the appointment.

UPDATE: Davey said:

Lord Mandelson has admitted to continuing his relationship long after Epstein was convicted, and there are more embarrassing details we don’t yet know.

People will be surprised by the prime minister giving ambassador Mandelson such strong support today.

Has the prime minister asked the ambassador what other compromising material the Trump administration might have on him, as he leads Britain’s negotiations with the White House?

And Starmer replied:

A full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.

Badenoch says Mandelson should be in the White House talking about the incursion into Nato airspace, not giving inteviews to the Sun. She goes on:

This is a man who already had to be removed from cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while business secretary.

I didn’t get a proper answer. He’s talking about process. This is not about process. This is about judgment.

Just last week, I told him that he should sack his deputy prime minister. They all cheered and congratulated themselves. She was gone two days later.

Starmer says Mandelson is talking to the White House. He says Badenoch is finally catching up with the questions she did not ask last week

UPDATE: Starmer said:

She says the ambassador should be in the White House discussing Nato. He is, as we all are with a number of international calls this morning, and on Ukraine as well as the attack in Doha yesterday. I see she’s finally catching up with questions that she should have asked last week about the deputy prime minister.

Badenoch says Starmer did not answer. That means he probably did know about the relationship. He says the Daily Telegraph reports today that Mandelson did a business deal with Epstein after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. How can it be “tenable” for Mandelson remain in post?

Starmer repeats his statement about having confidence in Mandelson.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

I asked the prime minister if he knew, the fact that he didn’t answer indicates that he probably did know.

I wasn’t asking a question about process. I was asking a question about his judgment.

The Daily Telegraph reports today, that while Lord Mandelson was business secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, while he was business secretary. And that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences.

Given this new information, does the prime minister really think it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?

And Starmer replied:

The relationship between the US and the UK is one of our foremost relationships, and I have confidence in the ambassador in the role that he is doing.

Kemi Badenoch also praises the Duchess of Kent. And she says the UK should stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland.

The US ambassador in Washington needs to be fully focused on this. Does the PM have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

Starmer says Mandelson has repeated expressed his regret for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He says he has confidence in him.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

A Nato country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue and liaising closely with America. Does the prime minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

And Starmer replied:

Let me start by saying the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of our minds. He was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.

The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with him. He is right to do so. I have confidence in him, and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.

This morning Keir Starmer issued a statement about the Russian drone attack on Ukrainne that led to Poland shooting down the Russian weapons in Polish airspace. Starmer said:

This morning’s barbaric attack on Ukraine and the egregious and unprecedented violation of Polish and Nato airspace by Russian drones is deeply concerning.

This was an extremely reckless move by Russia and only serves to remind us of President Putin’s blatant disregard for peace, and the constant bombardment innocent Ukrainians face every day.

I have been in touch with the Polish prime minister this morning to make clear our support for Poland, and that we will stand firm in our support for Ukraine.

My sincere thanks go to the Nato and Polish forces who rapidly responded to protect the Alliance.

With our partners – and through our leadership of the Coalition of the Willing – we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.

Jakub Krupa is covering this story in detail on his Europe live blog.

PMQs is starting very soon.

Here is the running order.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has warned cabinet colleagues that they will only have limited access to Treasury emergency funds in the run-up to the budget, the BBC’s Faisal Islam is reporting.

Islam says:

The Treasury reserve, designed to be used for “genuinely unforeseen, unaffordable and unavoidable pressures” has recently been used to fund higher public sector pay and compensation payouts.

In a letter to ministers, the chancellor said Treasury would only consider providing reserve funds to departments that have already maximised their savings …

The aim of restricting reserve access is to help Reeves stick to her borrowing rules by reducing government borrowing and keep department spending within totals announced at the June spending review.

She also warned that any funds borrowed from the reserve, which was £9bn last year and is set to be halved this year, would have to be repaid.

On Monday Shabana Mahmood, the new home secretary, said that she would do “whatever it takes” to secure the borders. In evidence to the Lords constitution committee, Lord Hermer, the attorney general, gave a similar, but subtly different, reply to a similar question. Referring to the small boats problem, he said:

This government has made absolutely plain that it is our priority to address it and as the previous lord chancellor, now home secretary, made plain before you, we will leave no stone unturned in trying to protect this country’s interests and dealing with what we inherited in respect of an immigration and asylum system that, in large measures was broken …

Nothing sensible or practical or effective will be off the table.

Hermer confirmed that the government is considering tightening how article 8 of the European convention on human rights (guaranteeing the right to family life) is interpreted in UK courts.

Some of our colleagues on the Council of Europe have, I think, more effective, more robust mechanisms that are compliant with article 8 that we need to look at. We are kicking the tyres hard at every level.

And he also firmly rejected claims in a recent thinktank report that the UK could leave the ECHR without the Good Friday agreement being undermined. Asked about the report, he said:

I saw that analysis. It’s just wrong. As you know, the European convention is expressly baked in to that agreement. We would be in breach of it if we left the convention.

That’s the plain legal view. I’m sure it would be the view not only held by Ireland, but also by the EU. It would do enormous damage to the interests of this country. It would be deeply worrying for Northern Ireland.

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.

Scotland’s first minister John Swinney is holding a press conference at his official residence, Bute House in Edinburgh, this afternoon to brief reporters after his meeting yesterday at the White House with Donald Trump to discuss tariffs on Scotch whisky.

The Scottish government said that Swinney had “constructive talks” with the US president on Tuesday, which took place with UK ambassador Peter Mandelson, suggesting this was very much a joint effort.

The meeting, which lasted about 50 minutes, also covered topics including Gaza and Israeli airstrikes on Qatar. It’s highly unusual for a Scottish first minister to secure such a significant meeting, indicating the growing relationship between the two leaders after Trump’s visit to Scotland earlier in the summer.

The Scottish Whisky Association says that 10% import tarrifs are costing the industry £4m a week, while US distillers are also concerned about a reduction in Scottish demand for used bourbon barrels which are used in the maturation process.

Swinney has been lobbying Trump since last December and will be likely see Trump again during his state visit to the UK next week.

The relationship between Trump and Swinney appears to have flourished thanks to the emotional ties the US President has to Scotland – his mother was born on the Isle of Lewis and owns two golf courses there – with Trump describing Swinney as “a special guy” at the end of his August visit.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has consolidated her place as the frontrunner in the contest to be Labour’s next deputy leader. Last night Labour published the first list of nominations for candidates, and Phillipson was in the lead. Here are the figures.

Bridget Phillipson: 44

Lucy Powell: 35

Bell Riberio-Addy: 8

Emily Thornberry: 7

Paula Barker: 3

Alison McGovern: 2

To be on the ballot paper, candidates need to get 80 MP nominations by 5pm on Thursday. An updated list of MP nominations will be published tonight, and it seems very likely that at that point Phillipson – who is in effect the No 10 candidate – will pass the threshold.

In Tory leadership contests, MPs can back a long-shot candidate and then switch to someone else in a subsequent round of voting, after they drop out. But in this process MPs who have already nominated one candidate cannot switch before the Thursday deadline unless their candidate withdraws. And MPs don’t have to nominate any candidate if they don’t want to. As a result, it is possible that Phillipson could end up as the only candidate on the ballot, and likely that the three candidates most critical of Keir Starmer (Emily Thornberry, Bell Ribeiro-Addy. and Paula Barker) will struggle to reach the 80-MP threshold.

According to Politico, Phillipson’s allies are “very confident” that she will get 80 nominations by the end of the day.

But, as Aubrey Allegretti and Max Kendix report in the Times, critics have been briefing against her.

Despite Phillipson’s strong lead among parliamentarians, she was criticised by rival camps. One senior MP said: “I think she’s quite robotic. She obviously has a very strong story, but she’s never really come across as having a personality. She’s no Angela Rayner.”

Phillipson’s perceived closeness to Starmer also concerned some. A minister said: “She’s not charismatic, engaging or going to light a fire under our membership, which is desperately needed. With Bridget, it’ll be continuity Keir.”

An ally of Thornberry expressed scepticism that “a sitting cabinet minister is never going to properly stand up to Keir and Rachel”, while a source close to Barker said it would be “impossible” for Phillipson to be a “constructive critic”.

According to Sam Blewett and Bethany Dawson in their London Playbook briefing, Phillipson’s supporters are arguing that it would be in the party’s best interests for the eduction secretary to be elected unopposed. One said:

The question Labour MPs need to be asking themselves is do they want a damaging six week internal deputy leadership contest, which opens old sores and potentially divides the party, because there is one candidate that can unite the party now — and that is Bridget Phillipson.

In 2021 at Labour conference Keir Starmer narrowly won a vote changing the leadership election rules so that candidates for leader need to be nominated by 20% of the PLP, not just 10% as before. The move did not attract a huge amount of attention in the national media, but in Labour circles it was extremely contentious, and Starmer and his allies saw it as an essential move in marginalising the left.

This week we are seeing why that rule change mattered so much. Under the old system, the deputy leadership contest would have been much more open to a Starmer-critical voice.

Peter Mandelson, the British ambassador to the US, has spoken at length about how he regrets “very, very deeply indeed” his past friendship with the billionaire paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

After new evidence about the extent of that friendship came to light yesterday, Mandelson gave an interview to the Sun’s editor-at-large in the US, Harry Cole, accepting that the disclosures were “very embarrassing to see and to read”.

Mandelson told Cole in an interview for his new show, Harry Cole Saves the West (sic):

I just feel two things now – one, I feel a tremendous sense, a profound sense of sympathy for those people, those women, who suffered as a result of his behaviour and his illegal criminal activities.

Secondly, I regret very, very deeply indeed carrying on that association with him for far longer than I should have done …

I regret very much that I fell for his lies, I fell for and accepted assurances that he had given me about his indictment, his original criminal case in Florida, like very many people, I took at face value what he said.

With hindsight, with fresh information, many years later, we realised that we had been wrong to believe him.

He is a charismatic, criminal liar we now see, and I regret very much indeed.

I felt it like an albatross around my neck since his death in 2018 or 19, when it was.

I feel, I feel a tremendous sense of regret, not only that I met him in the first place, but I continued the association, and I took, at face value, the lies that he fed me and many others.

Mandelson said that he expected further correspondence between himself and Epstein to surface. But he also insisted that he never saw any evidence of Epstein being involoved in criminal activity, and he suggested that that might have been related to his being gay. He told Cole:

I just would say this … during all the time I was an associate of his, I never saw the wrongdoing. I never saw any evidence of criminal activity. I never sought and nor did he offer any introductions to women in the way that allegedly he did for others.

Perhaps it’s because I’m a gay man, perhaps when I knew him, perhaps when I was associated with him those years ago, as I did with my then partner and now husband, we never, ever saw any evidence or sign of this activity, which has since come to light.

That’s why I feel so profoundly upset by what has been now revealed about what he did to women and why I feel profoundly upset that I was taken in by him and continued my association with him for far longer than I should have.

Cole did not ask Mandelson whether, in his current role as ambassador, there are any other charismatic, criminal liars he is at risk of being conned by.

The full five-minute interview is here, and there is a shorter clip here.

A senior executive at TikTok helped write the Labour manifesto while still working at the Chinese-owned technology company, he has said. James Lyons, who left his post as Keir Starmer’s director strategic communications last week, wrote on LinkedIn that he was asked last year to help write the party’s election pledges while he was still working for the social media platform. Kiran Stacey has the story here.

Good morning. Keir Starmer is today holding talks with Isaac Herzog, president of Israel, in Downing Street. The visit was highly contentious even before Israel bombed Qatar in a targeted strike aimed at Hamas officials.

More than 60 parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, SNP MPs, Greens and independents, have signed a letter to Starmer expressing “grave concern” at the visit because, even though the presidency in Israel is largely a ceremonial post, Herzog’s past comments and actions have been cited as support for the case that the country is committing genocide in Gaza.

Here is the text of the letter, coordinated by the Labour MP Andy McDonald.

And the Green party has gone further. Zack Polanski, its new leader, has called for Herzog to be arrested. He said:

President Herzog has been complicit while the Israeli government has engaged in an ongoing genocide in Gaza. Everyone involved should be arrested, charged for war crimes and face justice.

Welcoming a potential war criminal to the UK is another demonstration of how this Labour government is implicated in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. It also serves as a brutal insult to those mourning the thousands of innocent lives lost and to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians facing ongoing violence and hunger.

A refusal to detain Herzog can be seen as a contravention of the Geneva Convention which makes clear that States have legal responsibility for preventing the targeting of civilians. When this is breached individuals must be prosecuted and this should be applied to Herzog.

As Eleni Courea reports in her story, Herzog has “previously clashed with Netanyahu over democratic and judicial changes but broadly backed the military campaign in Gaza”. She says:

The Israeli president has received attention for a statement in which he asserted that all Palestinians in Gaza were “unequivocally” responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. “The entire [Palestinian] nation out there … is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved,” he said in October 2023.

Starmer will no doubt address this at PMQs.

And there will be more on Labour’s deputy leadership contest, although the main event – the private, online hustings for Labour MPs – will not take place until this evening, when the blog has closed.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: The ONS publishes annual household spending figures.

9.45am: Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, gives evedience to the Commons culture committee.

11am: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is due to give a speech at the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA) summit.

11.30am: Liz Kendall takes questions in the Commons for the first time since being moved from work and pensions secretary to science secretary in last week’s reshuffle.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

2.15pm: Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s first minister, and Emma Little-Pengelly, the deputy first minister, take questions from the executive office committee at Stormont.

Afternoon: John Healey, the defence secretary, holds a press conference with his counterparts from the E5 (the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) after they have held a meeting.

Afternoon: Starmer holds a meeting with Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), 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.