The next sacking is going to be Starmer

The ghost of Peter Mandelson has claimed another victim – the top civil servant blamed for clearing him to be Britain’s US ambassador even after he failed vetting. But the next victim of the Prince of Darkness’s touch of career death looks set to be Keir Starmer.

In February, the last time Starmer’s premiership was on the brink thanks to his appointment of Mandelson, the prime minister had a clear story to tell –- one that, for all the rage from the opposition benches and the right wing press, sounded more convincing than the one being offered now.

Mandelson, the prime minister told the House of Commons and the nation’s voters, had lied to him, and lied to the security services. All the proper procedures had been followed, Mandelson had passed the process, but he had done so dishonestly. Starmer said he was furious and sorry he had “believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him”.

This was not a great narrative for the PM, but it was one that worked, just. Starmer kept his job, though he had to jettison his chief aide Morgan McSweeney and promise to release all of the documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment. Starmer himself would limp on in No 10.

Keir Starmer’s story didn’t reflect well on anyone: why had so many ministers, advisors, and officials taken Mandelson – who admitted a friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and had been embroiled in multiple previous honesty-related scandals – at his word? But just like the “one rogue reporter” defence initially protected the News of the World in the early days of the phone hacking scandal, “Mandelson lied” did the same for Starmer.

At least, it did until now. Thanks to reporting by the Guardian, we now know that Mandelson did not pass his vetting after all. Instead, officials denied the clearance to Mandelson in January 2025, but were overruled by the Foreign Office.

The government position is now that Olly Robbins, sacked on Thursday night as permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, decided to override the official process and did so on his own authority, without consulting any ministers or special advisors – and then continued to conceal what he had done. If true, that would be remarkable. So remarkable – to the point of stretching credibility – that further questions are inevitable.

No 10 and the Cabinet Office claim only to have found out Mandelson failed his vetting on Tuesday. Deputy prime minister David Lammy, who was foreign secretary when Mandelson was appointed, similarly said he had only found out this week. The ever-present “friends” of Morgan McSweeney, who had been one of the driving forces behind Mandelson’s appointment, said he had similarly not known anything.

Robbins then apparently didn’t tell anyone about this at any stage over the following few months, even as the prime minister got ready to brief the Commons, and the government prepared to respond to multiple crises. Shortly before 11pm on Thursday, it was announced that Robbins would be leaving his post, having lost the confidence of both the prime minister and foreign secretary.

Suggested Reading

Starmer and Badenoch are about to lose big — so why are they still safe?

James Ball

Few in Westminster find this version of the story particularly convincing. Olly Robbins was one of the UK’s chief negotiators throughout the Brexit process, and as a result survived more media and political scrutiny than any civil servant usually endures – and more than most frontline politicians. The idea Robbins would suddenly expose himself so much, for no obvious reason, seems baffling.

What possible motive would he have? There is already a clamour for his side of the story.

However the rest of the facts land, every version of events is terrible for Starmer and his political project. If he knew, he almost certainly should resign. If he didn’t, he looks fatally incompetent.

The simplest story would be the discovery that Starmer did, in fact, know in February that Mandelson had failed vetting, but chose for some reason to mislead the Commons about it in a bid to keep his job. This story would, at least, make sense – but it would mean he knowingly lied to the Commons, which in most cases would end his political career.

The problem is that even if the PM didn’t know that Mandelson had failed the vetting process when he spoke in February, he really should have done. Mandelson had been fired months before. No 10 and the Foreign Office had already had months to get the facts lined up. The appointment process had involved senior No 10 and Foreign Office staff, not far-flung junior officials. Finding out what happened should not have been complicated.

If the prime minister cannot get basic facts right about a senior appointment in which he was personally involved, people are already asking, what is he doing trying to run a country?

The ongoing disclosure of Mandelson documents was already a time bomb slowly ticking away behind the scenes, though No 10 thought it had at least been delayed until after May’s elections. It was always going to reignite at some point, perhaps more than once. Now, Starmer faces yet another round of who-knew-what-when in which every answer is bad, and every option is deeply embarrassing.

The PM’s allies had argued he was responding well to Iran, and hoped that might help restore some stability to his premiership – as if a looming cost-of-living and energy supply crisis was somehow a political asset. Instead, Starmer is in a fresh political crisis of his team’s own making, less than three weeks out from elections in which Labour was already facing disaster.

Bizarrely, that timing might help him: staging a coup with an imminent election is a non-starter for many backbenchers.

The mood in the Labour ranks, though, couldn’t be much bleaker. As one Labour veteran observed, if Starmer survives in No 10 after this, he will be more squatter than prime minister.