A Starmer error that laid bare further errors

An impartial observer, independent and not affiliated with any party or political current, may be uncertain what position to take on Keir Starmer: to join those blaming him, to call for the British prime minister’s resignation or to feel sympathy for him in the face of the highly complex predicament he has been confronting since last week. The situation peaked at the start of this week, particularly during the House of Commons session on Monday.

For those not familiar with the substance of the issue, the crisis can be summarized as follows. On the Tuesday before last, The Guardian revealed in a notable scoop that the UK security vetting responsible for ambassadorial appointments did not approve the selection of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US in December 2024. Despite this, officials at the Foreign Office decided to bypass Mandelson’s failure in the security check and he assumed the post in February 2025.

A few months after Mandelson took up the post, a series of scandals involving relations between the American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in his cell while awaiting trial for sex crimes involving minors, and a number of prominent figures, including Mandelson himself, began to become clear. In response, Starmer moved quickly to deny any knowledge of the level of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

Starmer moved quickly to deny any knowledge of the level of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein

Bakir Oweida

However, further documents released by the US Department of Justice exposed Mandelson’s involvement in exploiting his position while serving as a minister in Gordon Brown’s government to pass sensitive economic information to Epstein. This led to police intervention: Mandelson’s home was searched and he was seen accompanying police officers as an investigation began.

Flanked by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer this week faced the House of Commons amid a fierce campaign against him that had reached the point of demanding his immediate resignation. The attack began with a forceful speech by Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who has repeatedly claimed that Starmer is no longer fit to bear the responsibility of governing.

This was followed by questions and speeches from leaders of other parties and other MPs, including a number of prominent Labour representatives, most of which focused on questioning the prime minister’s statement that he had not known Mandelson had failed the security vetting. For his part, Starmer held to this argument, insisting that officials deliberately did not inform him of the security agencies’ decision regarding Mandelson, while also acknowledging that the matter may appear illogical.

A fierce campaign against him had reached the point of demanding his immediate resignation

Bakir Oweida

This leaves the impartial observer torn between believing Starmer and feeling sympathy for him, while applying the principle of doubt until the truth becomes clear and falsehood is exposed.

What is certain, however, is that Starmer made the first mistake by appointing Mandelson as ambassador in Washington despite a record that indicates a series of errors that previously led to his resignation from ministerial positions. That appointment itself exposed several further errors, which in turn led to a storm that will not subside easily and may lead to electoral trouble for Labour Party candidates in the local council elections at the start of next month.

• Bakir Oweida is a Palestinian journalist who pursued a professional career in journalism in Libya in 1968, where he worked at Al-Haqiqa newspaper in Benghazi, then Al-Balagh and Al-Jihad in Tripoli. He has written for several Arab publications in Britain since 1978. He worked at Al-Arab newspaper, Al-Thadamun magazine and the international Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat. He has also worked as a consultant at the online newspaper Elaph.
• This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.