It is the beginning of what promises to be a difficult fortnight for Sir Keir Starmer. As local elections loom, the Prime Minister finds himself fighting for political survival.
To start with, the walls are beginning to close in over his decision to appoint the well-known ‘Prince of Darkness’, totally risk-free friend of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson to one of the country’s most sensitive diplomatic jobs. Getting royal sign off, agreeing it with America, granting access to classified material, all before completing the official vetting – against the advice of the most senior civil servant at the time – which recommended he be denied clearance.
That alone would be damaging. But the Conservatives believe they have grounds to escalate matters further by hauling the Prime Minister before the Commons privileges committee in a sleaze inquiry. It is, of course, the same body whose findings helped bring down Boris Johnson after determining he had misled Parliament over lockdown gatherings – a process Starmer himself championed.
The charge is straightforward: that Starmer misled Parliament when he insisted “due process” had been followed in Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, and that there had been “no pressure whatsoever” from him or Downing Street.
Those claims now look increasingly shaky. Sir Olly Robbins, dismissed by Starmer as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, last week spoke of “constant pressure” surrounding the appointment. Sir Philip Barton, who held the same role when Mandelson was announced, is due before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday and is expected to support accusations of pressure and face direct questions on the extent of it, and from whom. He, too, is said to have harboured reservations.
Further doubt is cast by a memo from Simon Case, then Cabinet Secretary, advising that proper vetting should precede any political appointment. It did not.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the Commons, is expected to allow a debate and a vote on Tuesday on whether to refer Starmer to the privileges committee over claims he misled the Commons.
But already Starmer is coming up with plans to make Labour MPs vote down any attempt to refer him to the privileges committee, with MPs expected to be whipped to oppose any attempt to refer the Prime Minister to a parliamentary investigation. After all, this coming ahead of what are expected to be terrible local elections – yes, for the Tories too, but especially Labour – is not what any government wants. But an attempt by Starmer to force his backbenches – already an unhappy bunch – into shutting down scrutiny of his bad decisions could risk another rebellion.
For the Tories, especially Kemi Badenoch’s opposition, the strategy is familiar: to deploy parliamentary procedure — once a favourite instrument of Starmer himself — against the Prime Minister.
If it were to succeed in the way it did four years ago against Boris Johnson, however, some Tories do wonder what they necessarily gain from it. Labour is already weakened; forcing out its leader might simply clear the way for a more effective successor. Worse still, another prime minister toppled by Westminster ‘psychodrama’ could lend weight to Reform’s charge of a self-absorbed “uniparty”, more consumed by internal drama than governing.
None of this negates the seriousness of the allegations. They amount to a grave lapse of judgment: granting access to sensitive intelligence against official advice. But for the Conservatives, victory in procedure alone is unlikely to suffice.
The broader task remains. Badenoch herself in a recent interview with The Times recognised the issues that emerge from not having a distinct platform – Starmer and this Labour government are the epitome of this – and more is left to be done. There are signs of movement: policy interventions are still coming, like shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith set to announce plans today to scrap union “facility time”, and there is a more visible media presence from the leadership. Polling suggests Badenoch herself is gaining traction, even if the party is not following her lead.
But still on the top of people’s tongues in Westminster for the party’s future development – one that could help the party’s renewal in the polls – is a reshuffle that promotes energy, effective communicators and fresh faces. People openly suggest it may come after the local elections, although party officials maintain there are no such plans.
If Starmer’s difficulties deepen in the weeks ahead, the Conservatives may find opportunities aplenty. But capitalising on them will require more than prosecuting Labour’s failures. It will demand a clearer sense still of what they themselves stand for.