Labour MPs in Despair as Mandelson Crisis Engulfs Starmer's Downing Street
The debacle of last summer, when Keir Starmer capitulated on welfare reforms amid backbench mutiny, was seen as a nadir for his administration. Astonishingly, history has repeated itself with the ongoing turmoil over Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the United States, leaving Labour MPs increasingly aware of the prime minister's vulnerabilities.
Parallels to Past Failures
In a striking echo of the welfare reform crisis, Starmer once again owes a debt to Angela Rayner for helping extricate him from a political quagmire. During the welfare saga, the then-deputy prime minister bluntly warned Downing Street that their concessions were insufficient to avert a Commons defeat, forcing No 10 to abandon most plans. This week, Rayner was instrumental in advocating for the intelligence and security committee to vet Mandelson's files, a move the government ultimately adopted in an amendment to a Conservative motion.
Adding to the similarities, Meg Hillier, a senior Labour backbencher and key figure in the welfare rebellion, also pushed for the ISC compromise. While the welfare reforms were a central part of the government's agenda, the Mandelson chaos stemmed from US authorities releasing new documents about Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Nonetheless, the outcome is identical: a weakened Downing Street and Labour MPs growing more cognisant of their own influence and Starmer's fallibility.
Mounting Fury Among Backbenchers
The reaction among Labour backbenchers to No 10's mishandling of the Mandelson affair has been one of genuine fury, exacerbated by the Conservatives' evident delight and success in exploiting the issue. The Tories triggered Wednesday's drama by using an opposition day debate to demand the release of documents detailing Mandelson's appointment. For stable governments, such debates are often inconsequential, but for those under pressure, they can prove treacherous—as seen when Liz Truss was toppled by a chaotic response to a Labour motion on fracking.
Following the concessions, backbenchers are now demanding swift and comprehensive disclosure of the Mandelson chronology. Some MPs hope this will be damning enough to end the tenure of Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who was a primary advocate for Mandelson within No 10. However, this process is complicated by an ongoing police investigation into whether Mandelson passed insider information to Epstein, an inquiry Starmer has cautioned must not be prejudiced.
Procedural Delays and Wider Malaise
Moreover, MPs seeking a full account of Mandelson's vetting will likely be disappointed, as releasing even minor personal details would breach data protection rules. Downing Street may hope that procedural boredom will defuse the urgency, with the ISC sifting through extensive documentation to decide what can be released. Yet, this is merely a temporary fix for what many Labour backbenchers view as a broader ailment: Starmer and his team's consistent inability to make sound decisions.
Critics argue that a prime minister with sharper political judgment would have resisted appointing a figure with a controversial history and known Epstein links to the court of Donald Trump. Instead, Starmer could have retained the highly effective incumbent, career diplomat Karen Pierce, or sought a comparable replacement. His failure to do so led to a gruelling prime minister's questions session, where he was relentlessly pursued by Kemi Badenoch until he admitted awareness of Mandelson's Epstein ties when offering him the prestigious role.
Uncertain Future for Starmer
Now, with another U-turn, Badenoch claiming victory, and a cheerful Rayner holding court in Commons corridors, the majority of Starmer's MPs are left pondering how many more chances he can afford. This crisis, much like the welfare reform debacle, is merely delayed, not resolved, casting a long shadow over Downing Street's competence and stability.
