It is the cardinal rule of British politics: never lie to parliament. For, as Boris Johnson found to his cost, the political penalty for ‘misleading the House’ can be fatal. Having shrugged off the abortive Anas Sarwar coup in February, some around Keir Starmer had started daring to hope that, with the outbreak of the Iran crisis, they could begin to chart a course through the next few months. But now the Peter Mandelson scandal has reared its head again, plunging Starmer into peril once more.
This afternoon the Guardian reported that Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance in late 2024 to become the UK ambassador to the US, but the decision was then overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post. Senior figures in No. 10 suggest that the Prime Minister was unaware of this fact – which begs the question as to why Starmer repeatedly told the House of Commons that ‘full due process had been followed’ on the appointment. The Prime Minister said that ‘there was security vetting by the security services’ and told a press conference explicitly that ‘security vetting… which is an intensive exercise… gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role’.
Downing Street is under intense pressure to clarify the timeline – but the opposition parties are clearly scenting blood
Downing Street is under intense pressure to clarify the timeline – but the opposition parties are clearly scenting blood. Nigel Farage says that Starmer has ‘blatantly lied’ and that he ‘should resign’. Kemi Badenoch implies the same but stops short of an outright call: ‘We now know the Prime Minister misled the House. The Prime Minister must take responsibility.’ Ed Davey couches his call in slightly softer language, suggesting only ‘if’ Starmer has misled Parliament then ‘he has to go.’ Demanding a leader quit is, as one Tory puts it, ‘a matter of timing – you can’t keep calling on them to go.’ The fact all three parties are saying much the same suggests they think this could spell Starmer’s end.
No single issue has arguably caused Starmer more grief than the appointment and subsequent handling of the Mandelson affair. The Guardian reports too that senior government officials have been considering whether there was a basis to withhold from parliament sensitive documents showing that Mandelson had failed vetting. Any such decision could amount to defiance of a parliamentary vote that ordered the release of ‘all papers’ relevant to his appointment.
Predictably, Downing Street is now pointing the finger of blame at the Foreign Office. In a statement, two hours after the Guardian’s story, a spokesman said: ‘The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO. Neither the Prime Minister, nor any Government Minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted Developed Vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.’ So much for Mr Rules, eh?
Starmer, more than anyone, will remember the parliamentary playbook he so effectively deployed against Boris Johnson to leave him walking wounded after partygate. Now, his own poor judgement and attempts to conceal past mistakes could reopen the question of his leadership, just when Labour is about to face electoral armageddon at the polls. He was a lucky general in opposition but the timing of today’s story suggests Keir Starmer is anything but in government.
Comments