7 resultsfor “Starmer response to misleading accusations”
misleading parliament, the accusation now being thrown at Keir Starmer. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Starmer’s problems stem from his decision in late 2024 [to appoint Peter Mandelson](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/20/appointment-peter-mandelson-new-uk-ambassador-to-us-divides-labour-mps), a Labour peer
accused the prime minister of misleading the House of Commons, after a report suggested Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting for the role of US ambassador. [The Guardian newspaper reported](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/16/revealed-mandelson-failed-vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision) that
Starmer has accused officials in the Foreign Office of deliberately and repeatedly withholding the fact Lord Mandelson initially failed security vetting for the role of US ambassador. Giving a statement to MPs, the prime minister
Starmer will not face a parliamentary investigation over claims he misled MPs about the process to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador. The House of Commons voted 335 to 223 against a Conservative-led motion
responsibility for being totally transparent with you, with parliament and the British public,” he said. “I take that very seriously as well. “But this is not about a lack of transparency. This is a political
accused of racism – spiralled [into rioting](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/southampton-residents-shock-protest-violence-henry-nowak-murder) on Tuesday night. The [imperative not to inflame matters further](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/02/keir-starmer-far-right-exploit-henry-nowak-murder) was obvious. Similarly, Badenoch has good reason to differentiate herself on the issue
Starmer has been in the Commons again defending his actions over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US. It comes after it emerged the peer was given security clearance for the role