UK PM pleads ignorance over Mandelson, won’t resign
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is under renewed pressure to resign, expressed anger that he was not informed that former US ambassador Peter Mandelson had failed a security review before handing over the post.
Starmer, who won the largest majority in modern history for Labor in the 2024 general election, faces fresh calls to resign over the Mandelson affair, with just three weeks to go before his party is expected to suffer huge losses in local elections in England and regional votes in Scotland and Wales.
Starmer received a brief reprieve from his critics after limiting the UK’s role in the Iran war after Labor veteran Mandelson was sacked as ambassador last year over his ties to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
But on Thursday it was revealed that Mandelson had failed a security review conducted before his appointment as envoy; Starmer’s team said the prime minister was unaware of this.
Starmer’s political enemies questioned how a prime minister could not have known this and demanded his resignation.
Starmer, who was in France on Friday for talks on the Iran crisis, told reporters it was inexcusable that he was not told that Mandelson had failed his security review “when I told parliament that due process was being followed”.
Starmer said he would “present the relevant facts” to parliament on Monday.
A spokesman for Starmer told reporters the prime minister had no plans to resign.
The Prime Minister’s chief secretary, Darren Jones, said on Friday that “the recommendation was that Peter Mandelson should not be appointed to the role” and that the Foreign Office had ignored this.
He said it was “surprising” but within the rules.
Downing Street officials moved swiftly to quell the scandal late on Thursday, sacking the top Foreign Office official, Olly Robbins.
On Friday, Sky News reported that friends of Robbins said the rules of the inquiry procedure meant he could not pass on concerns raised to Starmer or explain what else was taken into account when giving his approval.
But Starmer’s claim that his team did not know key information about the appointment, which he promoted as a genius move in 2024, until this week has sparked doubts about whether the prime minister has complete sway over his government.
A Labor MP, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the party was unlikely to sack Starmer for now, but the Mandelson saga was “the gift that keeps on giving” and would ensure he remains under scrutiny ahead of an expected crush in local elections on May 7.
Another Labor MP said Britain’s deputy prime minister, David Lammy, who was then foreign secretary, should resign.
“The election is more about incompetence than fraud,” the lawmaker added.
Starmer’s spokesman said no minister or anyone in the prime minister’s office was aware of the review failure.
George Foulkes, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British parliament, called for caution, saying that acting against Starmer would be reckless.
“With so many issues that he has covered so well, we need to put things in perspective,” he told Reuters.
Starmer could be challenged if 20 per cent of Labor MPs support a rival candidate to replace him.
This means that such a candidate would need the support of 81 MPs.
The point of contention for opposition politicians is whether Starmer knowingly misled parliament when he assured MPs that Mandelson had completed his 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 an ambassadorial post and revealed by parliament last month suggested he had passed security clearance.
Mandelson was dismissed in September after the extent of his ties to Epstein were revealed in documents published in the United States.
He is currently under police investigation on suspicion of leaking government documents to Epstein but has not commented publicly on the allegations.
with AP
