Keir Starmer is facing a critical moment as he prepares for a showdown with MPs regarding Peter Mandelson's vetting failure. Accusations have emerged that Starmer sacked a senior civil servant to protect his position amid growing concerns over his political judgment.
Key points
Keir Starmer faces a showdown with MPs over Mandelson's vetting failure.
The prime minister was reportedly not informed of Mandelson's vetting issues.
Accusations suggest Starmer sacked a civil servant to protect his position.
Mandelson's past includes being sacked from cabinet and ties to Epstein.
Concerns about Starmer's political judgment are growing.
Mentioned in this story
Keir StarmerPeter MandelsonJeffrey Epstein
Keir Starmer has spent much of the last 24 hours working on a plan for what senior government figures are already describing as his “judgment day”: his showdown with MPs on Monday over the latest Peter Mandelson revelations.
That the prime minister was apparently not told of Mandelson’s vetting failure has provoked incredulity across Westminster and accusations he sacked a senior civil servant to save his premiership.
It has also shone a spotlight again on what many feel is Starmer’s biggest failing: his political judgment. Even though some proclaimed Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s latest “Trump whisperer” a stroke of genius at the time, the risks were always clear.
It was common knowledge Starmer’s pick for UK ambassador to Washington had been sacked from cabinet twice, had an ongoing relationship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and had business links with China.
It did not need the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team to raise red flags and warn the prime minister of the reputational risk of appointing him (though it did).
Had Starmer been aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting, allies say, he would have blocked the appointment. Of course, had he been aware and it had gone ahead, he would be in an even messier predicament than he is now.
Instead, the prime minister looks like a man who is not really in control, incurious and uninterested in what is really going on inside his government. While he says he was “staggered” not to have been told, it is hard to escape the impression that, if he had asked a few questions, he may have been able to find out.
So one of the things puzzling MPs right now is why, at no point, did the prime minister or his political aides think to ask about Mandelson’s deep security vetting. Or indeed, that the system was not – until last week – able to tell him.
When Starmer was told by officials on Tuesday night that Mandelson had failed his vetting, he immediately – we’re told – demanded they establish all the facts so he could update parliament.
Q&A
What are the latest revelations about Peter Mandelson's vetting?
Peter Mandelson's vetting failure has raised serious concerns, with reports indicating that the prime minister was not informed of this issue.
Why is Keir Starmer's political judgment being questioned?
Starmer's judgment is under scrutiny due to his controversial appointment of Mandelson, who has a troubled past and connections that raised red flags.
What accusations are being made against Keir Starmer regarding a civil servant?
Starmer is accused of sacking a senior civil servant to save his premiership amid the fallout from Mandelson's appointment.
What risks were associated with Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington?
Mandelson's appointment was risky due to his history of being sacked from cabinet, ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and business connections with China.
See every story in News — including breaking news and analysis.
Peter Mandelson
Some proclaimed Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ‘Trump whisperer’ a stroke of genius at the time, but the risks were always clear. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images
He will no doubt be asked on Monday why he did not think it was worth sharing even just the headline fact with parliament at PMQs last Wednesday. Ministers are expected to correct the record as soon as they realise they have made a mistake – inadvertently or otherwise.
Instead, MPs learned from the Guardian, with cabinet ministers sharing stories of finding out while in mid-air, on trains, out door-knocking – all taken by surprise and adding to the sense of disarray gripping the government.
Starmer promised to restore stability and order when he came to power, after years of Tory chaos. There were high hopes this former lawyer – “Mr Rules” as one cabinet minister described him at the time – would bring back propriety.
It is not just his MPs who have been left disappointed by the Mandelson saga, but the wider public as well. What could be regarded as a story about Westminster process is, in fact, a much more significant one that goes to the heart of what sort of man the prime minister is, and what sort of government he leads.
Starmer was already facing a difficult few weeks, with Labour bracing for a rout in May’s local and devolved elections, and further economic fallout expected at home from the Iran crisis.
The prime minister’s team had carefully prepared how they were going to get him through it, and were taking some succour from the quiet in the Labour ranks as he navigated his way through a difficult international picture.
Labour MPs, many of whom have been agitating for change at the top for months, stepped back from the brink when actually presented with an opportunity: the party’s Scottish leader Anas Sarwar calling for him to go back in February. Downing Street aides allowed themselves a sigh of relief.
But Labour MPs will be watching closely – waiting to be convinced – when Starmer appears before them on Monday. And again when that sacked civil servant, Oliver Robbins, answers questions of the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday.
They know the public has been losing faith in the political system for years. Every twist and turn of the Mandelson scandal accelerates that. So when another opportunity presents itself to change leadership, they may take it.
