Keir Starmer is in the middle of his worst crisis yet following further damaging revelations about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Emails released by the US government revealed the depth of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein and confirmed that it continued after Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
Starmer insists that Mandelson lied to him and to the team responsible for vetting him as a candidate to be the UK ambassador to the United States. According to Starmer, Mandelson’s answers gave the impression that he barely knew Epstein.
When emails came to light in September showing that the relationship was deeper than claimed, the prime minister dismissed him. Starmer has, however, now admitted that he knew at the time of the vetting that Mandelson had remained in contact with Epstein after he was convicted of sex offences.
À lire aussi :
What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?
The prime minister’s judgement over appointing Mandelson as his ambassador was being called into question even before these latest revelations. Mandelson had previously resigned twice (in 1998 and 2001) from Tony Blair’s government following scandals, and it was public knowledge that he had been friends with Epstein. All of this should have ruled him out of consideration.
Pressure has been mounting on the government to release documents detailing Mandelson’s vetting to show how much was really known about his ties to Epstein. It is these documents specifically that are at the centre of the latest speculation that Starmer cannot survive in his job.
The Conservative party tabled a humble address motion in the House of Commons on February 4 calling for all vetting documents and related correspondence to be made public. Humble address motions, if passed, compel the government to carry out the actions specified in the motion.
Starmer has a large majority and could have fought off this manoeuvre had he had the support of his own MPs. But they are furious with him. Some have briefed that this scandal is the final straw after a series of poor judgement calls from the prime minister (previously mostly in relation to policy, where U-turns have been required).
They made it clear to the whips that they would rebel if instructed to vote against the Conservative motion. As a result, the government decided to table an amendment to the motion to give itself control over which documents would be released.
Its stated aim was to prevent any material that could be prejudicial to national security or international relations from being made public. Starmer has also said that a police investigation into Mandelson also precludes publication of some documents because they may prejudice any case against him.
This amendment was tabled the night before the debate and vote but it quickly became clear that trust in the prime minister and his government had completely evaporated and that Labour MPs would not support the amendment. In response, a last-minute manuscript amendment was drafted and tabled to ensure that documents pertaining to Mandelson’s appointment would instead be given to the (cross-party) Intelligence and Security Committee for review and publication. That would prevent the government from deciding what to release.
This amendment was suggested in the chamber by Angela Rayner (the former deputy prime minister and deputy Labour leader) and is a sign of how serious the situation has become for the prime minister. It signals clearly that his own MPs no longer trust him or his government to handle the release of documents appropriately.
Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND
The government has now lost control of the process, and this could lead to the publication of documents that further damage its reputation — not only regarding what the government did or did not know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, but also potentially embarrassing correspondence about Donald Trump and members of his administration.
The wording of the government’s initial amendment attempted to block the release of documents that might affect international relations. That suggests there may be damaging revelations of the kind that forced one of Mandelson’s predecessors as US ambassador, Kim Darroch, to resign. Darroch was forced to stand down as ambassador in 2019 after leaked emails showed he’d called the first Trump administration “”clumsy and inept”.
Labour MPs have had enough
The level of frustration on the Labour backbenches is now comparable to that of Conservative MPs during the final months of Boris Johnson’s premiership. The focus of retribution is currently directed at the prime minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who MPs blame for this error of judgement (as he was a political ally of Mandelson). They see McSweeney has having given poor advice to the prime minister and blame him for the poor operation of Downing Street over the past 18 months.
Even if the immediate pressure is on McSweeney, losing him would still be destabilising for the prime minister. A similar dynamic played out under Theresa May when her party forced her joint chiefs of staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, from office after the 2017 election.
Either way, Starmer’s days as prime minister appear to be numbered. The real question is how long he can remain in office. Labour MPs are not naturally inclined toward regicide – indeed, the party has never removed a sitting prime minister from office before. Any challenger needs the support of 80 MPs to trigger a leadership election – one in which Starmer would be entitled to stand himself. That remains a high threshold.
And, in the first instance, none of the apparent heirs to the leadership are currently positioned to launch a credible challenge. Andy Burnham was prevented from standing in the upcoming Gorton and Denton byelection, so won’t become an MP any time soon. Angela Rayner has yet to resolve the tax issues that forced her resignation from government last year. Wes Streeting is viewed as being too closely aligned politically with Mandelson to mount a challenge over this scandal.
There are, however, further moments of danger on the horizon. The loss of the Gorton and Denton byelection could weaken the prime minister further. Some in the party are still angry over Burnham being blocked, which many believe may have cost Labour a winnable seat.
Upcoming local elections in England, as well as the parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, also look set to be torrid for Labour. It is likely that Starmer will limp on into the local elections, but beyond that his future will depend on his MPs – specifically, whether they choose to fire the starting gun on a leadership challenge or whether they can talk him into announcing his resignation as leader of the party, thereby triggering a leadership election.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto front cover simply read “Change”, but in recent weeks politics has felt uncomfortably reminiscent of 2022. That is Labour’s problem.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login