Starmer faces moment of jeopardy as key witnesses give evidence
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a three-pronged ordeal at Westminster over his handling of the Peter Mandelson affair, as the wounded prime minister limps towards the end of the parliamentary session.
Sir Philip Barton, former head of the Foreign Office, told the Commons foreign affairs committee on Tuesday that he was informed of Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador less than a week before the decision was publicly announced.
Barton added that he made it clear he “had a concern” at the time about the peer’s links to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he said he was given “no space” or mechanism to air his worries within government.
Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who pushed Mandelson’s appointment and was in effect left by the prime minister to sort out the details, insisted he did not ask officials to ignore any security procedures around the appointment.
But Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security adviser, thought the whole process was “weirdly rushed”, according to a cache of documents relating to the appointment.
Testifying to the same committee, McSweeney told MPs that it was “like a knife through my soul” when he realised the extent of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein.
“When I saw the pictures [of Mandelson with Epstein]...in September 2025 I have to say it was like a knife through my soul. I did not expect that level of connection.”
As McSweeney continued his testimony, opposition parties started their attempt to subject Starmer to a formal inquiry into the whole Mandelson affair.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey and others believe that the prime minister misled the Commons on the issue and want him to be referred to a detailed inquiry by the Commons privileges committee.
Starmer and his allies, including former prime minister Gordon Brown, have urged Labour MPs to vote against the motion. A vote is expected before 7pm.
Although Starmer, who has a huge Commons majority, is expected to comfortably win the vote, any signs of dissent from Labour MPs during the debate or any rebellion will be a further blow to the prime minister’s authority.
Labour criticism of motion against Starmer is hypocritical, LibDem leader says
Sir Ed Davey said he had backed the Tory motion to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee over the Mandelson affair, because it was an attempt to “defend the simple principle that honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in our politics”.
Opposition parties are pushing for Keir Starmer to be subjected to a formal inquiry on the basis that he misled the Commons.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats said Labour’s criticism of the motion as political gamesmanship ahead of the local elections next month was hypocritical when Starmer himself had pushed a similar motion against Boris Johnson four years ago.
“When I hear the prime minister complain that we have tabled this motion just over a week before important elections, I find myself transported back to that debate four years ago — seven days before crucial local elections.”
McSweeney denies Mandelson had ‘guiding hand’ over him
Morgan McSweeney wrapped up more than two hours of evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee with a rejection of the idea that Peter Mandelson had “some sort of guiding hand” over him.
“This sort of mythos that’s been built, that he has some sort of guiding hand behind me on my strategies or my life, is not the case,” he insisted.
McSweeney said he began to engage with Mandelson for advice in “late 2020 or early 2021”.
“I wanted to know what a winning campaign would look like. And he had been part of one in 1997, and that’s why I engaged with him then,” McSweeney said. “But there was no closeness of a relationship prior to that whatsoever.”