Politics
Labour defence lines leaked ahead of Starmer’s Mandelson grilling
At 15:30 on 20 April, Labour PM Keir Starmer went before parliament to get his excuses in for hiring Peter Mandelson. While it was always an act of gross incompetence to hire the twice-disgraced Mandelson, we now know Starmer hired him despite Mandelson failing security vetting. The PM claims he was unaware of the vetting issue; the public are struggling to believe him.
In aid of his latest excuse-fest, Team Starmer produced the following document which has now leaked:
[@breeallegretti] pic.twitter.com/We9qSEetyQ — Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 20, 2026
We’re going to go through it and give you some ‘lines to take’ of your own.
Line them up
The first section of the document is titled ‘Top Lines’.
And if these are the lines they put at the top, we’d hate to see the ones at the bottom.
- Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our Ambassador – the PM has taken responsibility for that decision and repeatedly apologised.
Apologies aren’t enough when the act was so obviously wrong from the outset. If random Twitter accounts knew it was a horrible idea to hire Epstein-associate Mandelson, the PM should have known.
- Foreign Office officials granted Developed Vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers they’d done so against the recommendation from the vetting agency.
Sounds like Starmer has no grip on his government whatsoever; he should really resign!
- Neither the Prime Minister, nor any Government Minister, was aware this had happened until Tuesday last week. Neither were any officials in Number 10. That’s why the PM has said himself he’s furious – this is completely unacceptable.
“Nor any Government Minister” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because we know that Starmer’s Director of Communications was made aware last year (if he didn’t know already):
Liz Kendall is asked about David Maddox asking Number 10 about Mandelson failing the vetting months ago, despite the PM saying he only found out last week.
Kendall refuses to comment, saying she can't speak on behalf of number tens director of communications. https://t.co/DzX9KJxMMW pic.twitter.com/pDW1k0ytsc
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 19, 2026
- Once the Prime Minister was told, he immediately asked his officials to establish the facts so he could come to the House of Commons with all the information and explain what had happened. That is what he’s doing today.
No one believes he didn’t already know, sorry.
- The Prime Minister has confirmed he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson as HMA Washington if he had been informed UKSV had recommended his security clearance should not be granted.
Mandelson was given the role before his vetting was completed, so this is just untrue, isn’t it?
- Following these shocking revelations, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances against the recommendations of UKSV.
How come every British political scandal is solved with: ‘we’ve implemented new guidelines to ensure people follow the rules which prevent them breaking the law‘?
- The Prime Minister recognises people’s trust in politics has been badly damaged by the recent revelations but despite what’s happened, he holds the same beliefs: that politics can be a force for good and his Government is united in moving forward with confidence to change the country for the better.
Starmer holds no personal beliefs or opinions; he’s essentially what you’d get if a genie turned a rock into a person.
- As the Prime Minister has previously assured the House, the Government remains committed to complying with the Humble Address. Work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in scope of the motion.
You need to commit yourself to resigning, pal, and to stop dragging this out.
Labour: suggested Interventions
The following are lines that Starmer’s team hoped MPs would read out in the commons address. We’re not going to cover all of them, but some stand out:
Mr Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I commend him for coming to the House and setting out the facts for us all to hear today. For me, there is one fact that matters above all, and I would just ask him to reiterate it for those on the benches opposite who are having difficulty understanding. Did anyone from the Foreign Office at any stage say to him or his office that UKSV had recommended against granting Mandelson DV status?
This gives Starmer the opportunity to repeat ‘no one told me nothing‘. This would be fine if anyone was inclined to believe him.
Mr Speaker, earlier today, NBC released an interview with hospice worker Rachel Benavidez, who was 22 years old when she became one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse on his New Mexico ranch. For 27 years, she has been waiting for the crimes committed against her to be recognised, and she told NBC, I quote, “Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I don’t think there’s ever going to be any justice.” Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe it to the hundreds of victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates, and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like Peter Mandelson who refused to believe those victims?
The time to put survivors first was before hiring Epstein-associate Mandelson, and the way to do so was by not hiring him.
Mr Speaker, I can understand why the detail of vetting reports are not shared with the appointing Ministers, because if they were, then the subjects of that vetting would not be as forthcoming as they need to be when questioned about their personal lives. However, does the Prime Minister agree that the conclusions which emerge from those vetting reports absolutely should be shared with Ministers, especially in a situation when those conclusions are being overruled?
It’s so hard to believe this wasn’t happening already. If it wasn’t, just sack everyone and start again.
While we’ve nothing but bad things to say about spooks and politicians, we did at least think they could carry out a simple vetting procedure.
I thank the Prime Minister for his Statement, and welcome him stating that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as HMA Washington. Can he now tell the House what reforms he has made to strengthen both due diligence and security vetting processes, given they so clearly fell short on this occasion?
“Due diligence” didn’t need to come into it; he was Peter Mandelson – the self-styled ‘Prince of Darkness’ – the pal of Jeffrey Epstein – so scant diligence should have sufficed.
Christ, a passing glance would have covered it.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House what action he is taking, alongside Cabinet colleagues, to ensure the information provided to Parliament around the appointment of Peter Mandelson is wholly accurate?
Mr Liar Liar, could you please reassure us that your flaming trousers are in fact not on fire?
Could the Prime Minister provide the House with an update on the proposed legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers, like Peter Mandelson, given their behaviour
While we do need this legislation, let’s not forget that Mandelson was twice-disgraced before they made him a peer.
Speaking out
We really hope that none of the above “lines to take” are spoken aloud. We hope that Labour MPs have finally seen the writing on the wall, and that they get rid of Starmer before he can do any more damage.
We’re not confident in that, of course, because this is the same Labour Party who gave us Starmer and Mandelson in the first place. Still, the fact that this document leaked shows some MPs are done with taking talking points from this laughing stock of a government.
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 20, 2026
Featured image via World Economic Forum (Flickr)
By Willem Moore
You must be logged in to post a comment Login