Politics
Starmer to whip MPs to vote against probe into himself
Keir Starmer – a.k.a. Mr Transparency – has a new plan to ensure the UK enjoys a healthy and vibrant democracy:
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 26, 2026
While this plan could save Starmer from having to face an investigation, it certainly won’t make him look more honest in the eyes of the public.
Misleading, Starmer? Surely not?
In a piece titled “Keir Starmer plots escape from sleaze inquiry“, the Times have reported:
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the Commons, is expected to allow a debate and a vote on Tuesday on whether to refer Starmer to the privileges committee over claims he misled the Commons.
The Tories and other opposition parties have accused Starmer of misleading MPs by claiming that “due process” was followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US and there was “no pressure whatsoever”.
It’s important to understand that critics originally accused Starmer of misleading parliament because he said Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. We’d later learn Mandelson hadn’t passed vetting, with the PM claiming he didn’t know about this due to a series of complicated and hard-to-believe factors.
In the process of defending himself, Starmer would once again mislead parliament – this time by claiming there was no pressure put on civil servants. Starmer has since said there was pressure, but it was a different sort of pressure to the one everyone assumed he meant, so that’s all fine, actually:
Starmer: "There is a separate pressure which is: was there a pressure on him, essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance? [Robbins] was really clear in his mind that wasn’t pressure that was put on him"
Story: https://t.co/Uil0plUvfp — Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 25, 2026
Absurd
Back to the Times, they noted:
Downing Street had hoped that the Speaker would deny any request for a debate and vote on the question of his honesty. The Times has been told that Hoyle is likely to grant the request because the procedural bar for doing so is “relatively low”. Parliamentary rules state that complaints must not be “frivolous”.
At this point, most people can agree it’s not “frivolous”. The lies and cock ups are piling up, and if Labour aren’t going to give Starmer the boot, they at least need to get to the bottom of what the hell is going on with him.
The Times added:
Boris Johnson, the former Tory prime minister, was left with no choice but to wave through his referral to the privileges committee over the Downing Street parties scandal because of anger on his own benches. It ended Johnson’s career in frontline politics. Any attempt by Starmer to compel Labour MPs to shut down scrutiny of his conduct could risk a backlash.
This is what the now-PM was saying when Johnson was facing his own transparency scandal:
Since the Tories have failed to act in the national interest, Labour will.
We've put down a vote of no confidence in this discredited Prime Minister and his government. The Tories can’t let him cling on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
It would be intolerable for the country.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 12, 2022
It’s true that public care less about these sorts of scandals than they do about matters which directly affect them. The problem for Starmer is the public think he’s doing a dreadful job on those issues too.
Indefensible
Starmer’s minions were out and about defending their boss this morning. You’ll notice the minister doing the rounds wasn’t one of the big hitters:
Govt minister Emma Reynolds starts by saying its been categorically proven that Keir Starmer did not mislead parliament
Sophy Ridge points out: "He seemed to say Mandelson cleared all vetting when he didn't" "Well he didn't know.."
So he inadvertently mislead parliament then. pic.twitter.com/r7qu5BCONj
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026
As we’ve covered, there are reports that the Cabinet are discussing plans to oust the PM, so it’s predictable that none of the most significant ministers are defending him.
The Mail’s Dan Hodges responded to Reynold’s appearance as follows:
Whether Starmer deliberately misled parliament over his claim Mandelson had been vetted is debatable. But that’s not the relevant offence. The clear offence is deliberately lying about whether pressure was brought to bear on civil servants, and misrepresenting Robbins testimony. And Emma Reynolds knows that.
Starmer is also being scrutinised over his handling of US spy firm Palantir. As we reported, the PM continued the trend of holding secret meetings with the firm established by the Tories:
Starmer has continued this pattern of secret meetings. A February 2025 Washington meeting between Starmer, Peter Mandelson, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp has no notes and preceded the £240 million December 2025 contract between the Ministry of Defence and Palantir.
Additionally:
Also central to this picture is Mandelson, whose lobbying firm Global Counsel worked for Palantir. It was Mandelson who introduced Starmer to Palantir CEO Alex Karp at that February 2025 Washington meeting, the one with no notes that preceded the £241 million MOD contract.
Hodges also referenced Starmer’s Palantir problem:
So here's an example. The Palintir lie. Darren Jones spent yesterday saying "it wasn't a meeting". Starmer is on the record last Monday saying "it was a routine meeting". Starmer's team in opposition would have shredded Boris on that. From the Tories? Tumbleweed.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) April 27, 2026
Once again, Starmer’s defence is that we can’t judge him on the things he says – only by the secret meanings his words have – meanings he doesn’t make clear until everyone gets upset with him.
Mr Transparency Starmer
The sleaze and lies are a problem for the PM because he promised the exact opposite in his pitch to become PM:
Keir Starmer promised a “transparency revolution” when he became Prime Minister. Instead we have the opposite. We have a government of cover ups, injunctions, broken promises, lies & blame shifting. This is the main reason why Labour are tanking in the polls. The trust has gone.
— James Melville
Starmer might be able to cling on for a bit longer, but he’s clearly not the man in charge at this point.
Featured image via UK Parliament
By Willem Moore
You must be logged in to post a comment Login