Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed anger on Friday over not being informed that his former ambassador to the United States had failed security vetting before being appointed, while defending himself against renewed pressure to resign.
Starmer, who won the largest majority in modern history for Labour at the 2024 general election, is now facing fresh questions over his political judgment just weeks before expected local elections in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Following the resignation of Labour veteran Peter Mandelson as U.S. ambassador over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Starmer had briefly eased pressure from critics after limiting Britain’s role in international tensions involving the United States, Iran, and Israel.
However, it later emerged that Mandelson had failed security vetting prior to his appointment — a fact Starmer’s team says the prime minister was not aware of. His political opponents have questioned how he could not have known and are calling for his resignation.
A senior minister said Starmer was “furious” that he had not been informed. Starmer himself said it was unforgivable that he was not told about the failed vetting while he had assured Parliament that due process had been followed.
Asked whether he would resign, Starmer said he would set out the relevant facts in Parliament on Monday.
Downing Street responded to the controversy by sacking the Foreign Office’s top official, Olly Robbins. However, the government’s claim that Starmer was unaware of key details has raised concerns about his control over government affairs.
Within Labour, reactions have been divided. One MP said the issue was “a gift that keeps on giving” for opposition parties ahead of expected losses in local elections. Another suggested Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who was foreign secretary at the time, should resign, framing the issue as “incompetence over deceit.”
Others urged caution, saying mistakes had been made but warning against moves to remove Starmer. A Labour peer said it would be reckless to challenge his leadership at this stage.
Under Labour Party rules, a leadership challenge could be triggered if 20% of MPs support a rival candidate, requiring backing from 81 lawmakers.
Opposition figures have questioned whether Starmer misled Parliament when he stated that Mandelson had completed security vetting and that no red flags had been raised.
A Foreign Office letter from January last year, released by Parliament, indicated that Mandelson had passed security vetting, stating that clearance was valid until 2030.
Mandelson was dismissed in September after details of his ties with Jeffrey Epstein emerged in U.S. documents. He is now under police investigation over alleged leaking of government documents to Epstein, though he has not commented publicly.
Starmer has previously apologised for appointing Mandelson, accusing him of a “litany of deceit” regarding his Epstein connections.
Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch described Starmer’s defence as “preposterous,” while Nigel Farage called it “blatant dishonesty.” Both also criticised the dismissal of senior civil servant Olly Robbins.
Badenoch further said that working for Starmer was becoming “one of the most dangerous occupations in the UK,” referring to recent departures of senior aides.
