1 hour ago
3
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer came under renewed pressure to resign on Friday despite sacking a senior official following news that Britain’s former ambassador to the US had failed security vetting but was still handed the job.
Starmer, who won the largest majority in modern history for Labour at a national election in 2024, faces fresh questions both over his judgment and his ability to govern, just three weeks before his party is expected to be punished in local elections in England, and regional votes in Scotland and Wales.
Following the resignation of Labour veteran Peter Mandelson as US ambassador over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Starmer had managed to win a brief reprieve from his critics after limiting Britain’s role in President Trump’s and Israel’s war in Iran.
However, on Thursday it emerged that Mandelson had failed the security vetting conducted before his appointment as envoy, a fact that Starmer’s team said the prime minister had been unaware of.
Starmer’s political foes have accused him of misleading parliament and have demanded his resignation.
Senior minister Darren Jones said on Friday Starmer was furious over not having been told about Mandelson’s failure to pass the security vetting.
“I don’t think it brings the prime minister’s future into question,” Jones told LBC radio, acknowledging that the system which had meant Foreign Office officials failed to communicate the vetting failure to ministers had “undermined the prime minister and the government.”
Downing Street moved swiftly late on Thursday to try to quash the scandal, sacking the Foreign Office’s top official, Olly Robbins.
Yet his team’s argument that Starmer did not know until this week key information surrounding an appointment he had promoted in 2024 as a stroke of genius has sparked doubts over how his operation works and whether the prime minister has a grip.
One Labour lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said while it was unlikely that the party would move against him now, the Mandelson saga was “a gift that keeps on giving” and would ensure that Starmer remained under scrutiny before an expected drubbing for the party in the local elections on May 7.
Another Labour lawmaker said David Lammy, Britain’s deputy prime minister who had served as foreign secretary at the time of the vetting, should quit.
But George Foulkes, a Labour member of the House of Lords, Britain’s unelected upper chamber of parliament, urged caution, saying “mistakes have been made” but that it would be reckless to move against Starmer.
“The Mandelson thing is not the major issue affecting people today who are worried about so many other things,” he told Reuters. “We need to keeps things in perspective when there are so many issues he has been dealing with well.”
The point of contention for opposition politicians is whether Starmer knowingly misled parliament when he reassured lawmakers that Mandelson had completed security vetting when he was appointed and that no red flags had been raised.
A letter from the Foreign Office in January last year offering Mandelson the job as ambassador, and released by parliament last month, suggested that Mandelson had passed the security vetting.
“Your security clearance has been confirmed by Vetting Unit and is valid until 29 January 2030,” the letter said.
Mandelson was sacked in September when the extent of his ties with Epstein were revealed in documents published in the US.
He is now under police investigation on suspicion of leaking government documents to Epstein but has not commented publicly on the allegations. A lawyer for Mandelson did not provide a comment on Thursday about the vetting process.
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, described Starmer’s defense as “preposterous”.
“The story does not stack up. The prime minister is taking us for fools,” she told BBC Radio 4.
Starmer has previously apologized for appointing Mandelson, accusing the former ambassador of creating a “litany of deceit” about his ties to Epstein and promising to release documents on how he was appointed.
English (US)