Sir Keir Starmer has said he is sorry for believing Peter Mandelson’s “lies” and for appointing him to the role of Britain’s ambassador to the US, as he tries to weather the crisis that has threatened to end his premiership.
Following a barrage of criticism from his own MPs on one of the most turbulent days of his leadership, the prime minister began a planned speech about community cohesion with a frank apology to the victims of paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, as he addressed growing anger over the way he has dealt with the issue.
In an attempt at damage control, after he admitted during PMQs that he knew Lord Mandelson had had a relationship with Epstein, he said: “None of us knew the depths and the darkness of that relationship.”
But speculation over Sir Keir’s future – and that of his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney – continues, and some Labour MPs have openly called on the prime minister to sack his right-hand man.
The situation has led Labour grandee Harriet Harman to warn Sir Keir that he must take action over the scandal or risk losing his job.
Baroness Harman told Sky News: “I think it is so serious for Keir Starmer. I don’t think it’s inevitable that it will bring him down.
“But it will bring him down, unless he takes the action that is really necessary for him to take, and that’s this: firstly, he’s got to stop blaming Mandelson, and saying ‘He lied to me.’ Because actually, he should never have been considering him in the first place.”
Sir Keir said he shared the “anger and frustration” of his colleagues about the saga, but vowed to continue as prime minister while doubling down on his support for Mr McSweeney, who has been blamed by many Labour MPs for pushing for the appointment of his ally Lord Mandelson, and for bringing him back into the heart of a Labour government.
Sir Keir is facing calls from within Labour ranks to implement a “total overhaul of personnel” in Downing Street, and to admit he made a “catastrophic error of political and moral judgement”, while opposition parties have called for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister.
Earlier, Paula Barker, Labour vice-chair of both the standards committee and the privileges committee, criticised Sir Keir’s “questionable” judgement over the saga, adding: “When your chief of staff becomes the story, then often it’s time for them to go.”
Fellow Labour backbencher Karl Turner added: “If McSweeney is still in 10 Downing Street, the PM is up against it.”
Another Labour MP, speaking anonymously, said getting rid of Mr McSweeney would be like cutting off the “head of the hydra” and that “root and branch” change in government was needed instead.
Asked about the prime minister’s speech, they said: “Take your apology and stick it where the sun don’t shine. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear them defend that. Once Trump was elected, they thought, we need to have him and be damned with the risks. What part of Mandelson staying at the home of a paedophile did you not understand?”
Speaking in Hastings, Sir Keir sought to pin blame on the vetting process carried out independently by the security services after Lord Mandelson’s appointment was cleared.
He said: “I think we need to look at the security vetting, because it now transpires that what was being said was not true. And had I known then what I know now, I’d never have appointed him in the first place.”
.jpeg)
Officials have been tasked with examining that process as a priority, according to Downing Street.
Meanwhile, a growing number of Labour MPs remain unconvinced by Sir Keir’s determination to remain in No 10, and are urging Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting to launch a leadership challenge over the scandal.
One Labour MP told The Independent: “Someone needs to go for it. This cannot go on.”
Sir Keir said Lord Mandelson was “asked directly” about whether he had stayed with Epstein after his conviction, and whether he had accepted gifts from the financier. “The information now available makes clear that the answers he gave were lies,” Sir Keir said. “He portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew. And when [it] became clear [that] it was not true, I sacked him. Such deceit is incompatible with public service.”
The address came after Labour MPs, led by Ms Rayner, forced the prime minister into a humiliating climbdown over the full release of vetting documents relating to the appointment.
The prime minister had attempted to restrict the publication of the documents, arguing that some details would need to be redacted on national security grounds, which prompted accusations that he was engaging in a “cover-up”.
Sir Keir eventually backed down after Ms Rayner stood in the Commons to make it clear she would be supporting the Tory proposal for the independent Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to decide which documents could be published.
Downing Street said it was in discussions with the ISC about the process of releasing the documents, and would update the House once a process had been agreed.
The ISC has since said it cannot commit to a timetable for reviewing the documents. In a letter to the prime minister, the committee said it would act “as it always does, entirely independently of government”, in determining whether certain documents should be withheld for national security reasons.
“That must be a matter for the committee alone – and it is clearly not possible for the committee to determine this until it sees the papers, or indeed to commit to any timetable until we know the size of the task at hand,” it added.
Meanwhile, opposition parties called for a no-confidence vote in the prime minister as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the issue as the biggest political scandal in Britain “for 100 years”.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told a Westminster press conference: “He will have to be dragged out of No 10, so I am making them an offer. If they want the change they know the country needs, come and speak to my whips and let’s talk seriously about a vote of no confidence to force the moment.”
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey echoed the calls for a vote of no confidence, while Mr Farage described the prime minister’s apology as “very weak” and “not quite believable”.