Starmer continues to face calls to resign over the Peter Mandelson scandal. Starmer sacked Mandelson as ambassador to the US in September 2025 after emails showed that he remained friends with the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein despite his conviction.
Even the resignation of Starmer’s high-powered chief of staff in February has not been enough to stop calls from MPs for the prime minister’s resignation.
But what do we know? Why has the controversy sparked again now? Will Starmer step down?
Let’s take a closer look.
Why Mandelson controversy sparked again
On Thursday, it was announced that Olly Robbins, the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office, was leaving his post. This came after a report from The Guardian that the Foreign Office did not inform Starmer that Lord Mandelson failed security vetting for the role of US ambassador. The Foreign Office, which oversees diplomatic appointments, cleared Mandelson despite the failure.
The BBC reported that Robbins, who took up the job of permanent under-secretary in January 2025, was ‘effectively sacked’. This came after Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper lost confidence in Robbins. Robbins previously worked as principal private secretary for former PMs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He is set to testify before the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.
What is Downing Street arguing?
Downing Street has argued that it is the Foreign Office that failed by not informing Starmer that Mandelson had failed the vetting process. Starmer, it is claimed, learned about the development last Tuesday. He is then said to have told his staff to establish all the facts before addressing Parliament.
However, Starmer did not share this information with Parliament during his Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons last Wednesday at noon. Ministers in the UK government are expected to issue on-the-record corrections as soon as they know they have made a mistake. This is regardless of whether they have done so inadvertently. Starmer, who is set to address the House of Commons over the controversy on Monday, has sought to shift the blame for the Mandelson appointment onto Robbins.
Starmer said he was doing so to “set out all the relevant facts in true transparency so Parliament has the full picture”. He called the lapse by the Foreign Office “staggering”.
“That I wasn’t told that he’d failed security vetting when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable,” he was quoted as saying by the BBC. “Not only was I not told, no minister was told, and I’m absolutely furious about it.”
Also read: Allies back Starmer as Mandelson, Epstein leave UK leader fighting for his job
He added that: “It is totally unacceptable that the prime minister making an appointment is not told that security vetting has been failed.”
However, Robbins’ allies say he would never have been able to share sensitive vetting information with the prime minister.
What is the opposition saying?
The opposition has accused Starmer of lying and incompetence, and demanded his resignation.
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrats leader, said he had shown “catastrophic misjudgement”, while Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, said at best he had been recklessly negligent.
“This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country,” she said in a letter sent to the prime minister on Sunday.
“Not only have you damaged our relationship with the United States and insulted the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but you have also undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual whom the security services found to be of ‘high concern’.”
‘Simply untrue’
The government is in self-defence mode.
Labour minister Douglas Alexander told the BBC any accusations that Starmer lied about Mandelson are “simply untrue”. Alexander told the outlet that he is confident that Starmer will survive the crisis.
“Mandelson was appointed in line with the process for political appointments for ambassadors” that the government “inherited from our predecessors”, he said.
“We all now recognise that the process was flawed,” he added. “A judgement was made that the Trump administration was an unconventional administration, and an unconventional ambassador could do a job for the United Kingdom,” Alexander said. “That judgement was wrong.”
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy and technology minister Liz Kendall both said at the weekend that Starmer would not have allowed Mandelson to take up his post if he had known about the vetting failure.
“I think he (Starmer) is an honest man and a man of integrity who says it was a mistake to appoint him (Mandelson),” Kendall added.
Lammy told The Guardian that he had “absolutely no doubt at all” that the prime minister “would never, ever have appointed” Mandelson if he had known he failed vetting.
Lawmakers in Starmer’s centre-left Labour Party, already anxious about the party’s dire poll ratings, are restive. Starmer has already defused one potential crisis in February, when some Labour lawmakers urged him to resign over the Mandelson appointment.
He could face a new challenge if, as expected, Labour takes a hammering in local and regional elections on May 7, which give voters a chance to pass a mid-term verdict on the government.
What do critics say?
Critics say the Mandelson appointment is more evidence of a failure of judgement by a prime minister who has made repeated missteps since he led Labour to a landslide election victory in July 2024.
Writing in The Times on Monday, Gus O’Donnell, former head of the civil service, claimed Robbins had been made a scapegoat. “The dismissal of Sir Olly risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants,” O’Donnell wrote. He added that Starmer “now faces one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”.
A piece in The Guardian said Starmer looks like a man not really in control, incurious and uninterested in what is really going on inside his government. “While he says he was “staggered” not to have been told, it is hard to escape the impression that, if he had asked a few questions, he may have been able to find out,” the piece stated.
“So one of the things puzzling MPs right now is why, at no point, did the prime minister or his political aides think to ask about Mandelson’s deep security vetting. Or indeed, that the system was not – until last week – able to tell him,” the piece added.
Starmer has struggled to deliver promised economic growth, repair tattered public services and ease the cost of living, and has been forced into repeated policy U-turns. British police launched a criminal probe and arrested Mandelson in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Mandelson has previously denied wrongdoing and hasn’t been charged. He does not face allegations of sexual misconduct.
FAQs1. Why is Keir Starmer facing calls to resign?
He is under pressure over the Peter Mandelson appointment controversy, particularly the failure to disclose that Mandelson had not passed security vetting over his links with Jeffrey Epstein.
2. Did Starmer know about the vetting failure beforehand?
According to Downing Street, Starmer was not informed by the Foreign Office and only learned about it later.
3. Will Starmer step down as prime minister?
There is no indication that he plans to resign. Senior labour ministers have publicly backed him to continue in office.
