The contradictions over the Mandelson case continue to plague Keir Starmer

LondonThe political crisis surrounding Keir Starmer over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to Washington in December 2024 has worsened this Tuesday after Olly Robbins' appearance before Parliament revealed numerous contradictions in the process followed. The discrepancies between Downing Street's account and the testimony of the highest-ranking Foreign Office official responsible for overseeing the appointment until last week once again place the Prime Minister's judgment at the center of the controversy, leaving him in a very compromised position.

The government maintains that the security vetting service issued an explicit recommendation not to approve Mandelson, with an internal report equivalent to a 'red light'. However, Robbins explained to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee that he never saw this document and that the information he received was a verbal summary of the outcome of the vetting process. In this version, the assessment was presented as a decision 'on the borderline,' susceptible to being managed with risk mitigation measures.

The second element increasing pressure on the Prime Minister is Robbins' description of an 'atmosphere of constant pressure' from Downing Street to expedite Mandelson's verification. The appointment had already been politically announced, and the timeline for his incorporation was conditioned by the desire for the new ambassador to arrive in the United States before the inauguration of Donald Trump, on January 20th of last year.

The contradiction between these versions opens up two fundamental questions. The first is whether the Foreign Office worked with incomplete or watered-down information regarding the final security report. The second, more sensitive, is what exactly Keir Starmer knew when last week he forced Robbins' resignation, accusing him of having hidden the final negative outcome of the process from him.

There is still more ammunition, however. A third element that complicates the Prime Minister's situation is the revelation of a parallel episode. The request from Downing Street's circle for a diplomatic position to be sought for Matthew Doyle, Starmer's former communications director. According to Robbins, he was asked to explore the option with the explicit instruction not to inform the Foreign Minister, who was David Lammy at the time. This detail feeds the perception of an appointment management system that operates, at least in part, through parallel, opaque circuits that serve to repay favors to the party's most loyal men.

'Due diligence'

But Robbins's testimony has added an even more uncomfortable element for Keir Starmer, as it goes to the real heart of the matter. Because the prime minister ignored that the due diligence on Mandelson's suitability prior to the security agencies' vetting process had already detected significant reputational risks in Mandelson's figure. Among others, his well-known links with Jeffrey Epstein and connections with controversial political actors in China and Russia. Robbins suggested that these antecedents should have been sufficient for the prime minister to reconsider the appointment before reaching the formal security clearance stage. In fact, the government secretary had also warned the prime minister.

Twenty-four hours after Starmer's appearance in Parliament to, once again, explain the affair, the political focus returns to Keir Starmer and his judgment. The prime minister himself has repeatedly admitted an "error of judgment" in relation to the case. But the controversy already transcends the specific appointment. The opposition questions his capabilities while within the Labour Party itself, discontent is growing which, for the moment, is not translating into a clear alternative to his leadership.

The political calendar currently favors containment: the local elections in England and the national elections in Wales and Scotland on May 7 discourage any move that would accentuate the internal leadership crisis.

But if the catastrophe predicted by the polls is confirmed, Keir Starmer will hardly be in a position to regain political control, and it will only be a matter of time before the party finds another replacement to occupy number 10 Downing Street. Be that as it may, Starmer's original sin – the appointment of a sinister figure in British politics for over three decades, known as the prince of darkness, who even leaked confidential documents from Gordon Brown's government to Jeffrey Epstein– is unlikely to be absolved.