Keir Starmer faces a crunch week – again

This article first appeared as part of the Daily Sensemaker newsletter – one story a day to make sense of the world. To receive it in your inbox, featuring content exclusive to the newsletter, sign up for free here.

Keir Starmer will appear before MPs in the House of Commons today to explain why Peter Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador despite failing high-level security vetting.

So what? It is yet another moment of peril for a prime minister in permacrisis. Starmer insists he was kept in the dark about the concerns identified by the vetting process, but opposition parties are calling for him to step down. Key unanswered questions include

• •

  what flags were raised;

• •

  why the vetting decision was overruled; and

• •

  whether Starmer misled parliament.

Under the microscope. Mandelson was subject to two sets of checks before he was sent to Washington. The first identified several concerns, including his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, but Starmer’s team deemed them to be manageable. The second was a process called ‘developed vetting’, which dives deep into an individual's background to ensure they are not a security risk.

Bombshell. Last week the Guardian reported that Mandelson had failed this second round of checks in January 2025. By that point, his appointment had already been announced. Mandelson was sacked nine months later over his friendship with Epstein.

Known unknowns. It is unclear whether Mandelson failed the vetting process because of Epstein, his business dealings in China or something else. Nor is it clear why the Foreign Office decided to press ahead with the appointment. The finger of blame has been pointed at Olly Robbins, the department's most senior civil servant, who was sacked on Thursday.

Not out of the woods. Even with Robbin’s departure, Starmer is badly exposed. In February he said that Mandelson had been handed “clearance for the role” after “intensive” checks, but red flags had been missed because he gave answers that “were not truthful”.

The message from Number 10. The prime minister says he was only made aware that Mandelson failed his vetting on Tuesday and that he is “absolutely furious” about it. On Sunday, technology secretary Liz Kendall said he would not have made the appointment had he known.

Deaf ears. This line has been met with incredulity, especially since the Independent revealed in September that MI6 had refused to clear Mandelson. If it is true, it still raises now familiar questions about the political judgment of the prime minister, who handed the most prominent job in the diplomatic service to a political appointee with well-known skeletons in his closet. It also adds to the sense of drift and mismanagement surrounding operations inside Number 10.

Ins and outs. Robbins appears before the foreign select committee tomorrow, a day after Starmer addresses MPs. His defence is expected to focus on the intricacies of the developed vetting system. An ally of Robbins has told The Observer that red flags are “merely information that informs the decision” whether to grant clearance and do not constitute an automatic fail.

Chorus call. These nuances may be lost on a public weary of the constant cycle of scandals afflicting Number 10. Reform, the Conservatives and the Greens are calling for Starmer to go. The Lib Dems say he must resign “if he lied to parliament.” A minister said: “We are all hoping he's safe for this week at least. It depends on how badly it goes on Monday and Tuesday.”

Breathing space. Starmer is helped by the fact that his potential leadership rivals within the Labour Party are still not ready to mount a challenge. The geopolitical and economic turbulence caused by the Iran war also makes this an inopportune time for a change of prime minister.

What’s more… This equation may change after next month’s local elections. A forecaster at the University of Oxford predicts that Labour could lose 1,900 council seats.

Photograph by Tom Nicholson / Getty Images