Starmer’s Reset crashes into Mandy

Lying or incompetent? Bumbling along in the driverless train or barefaced lying about his promises? Maybe Starmer is both at different times.

Starmer has stated to us all and in parliament that Peter Mandelson underwent vetting and all due diligence for his appointment as ambassador to the USA. He questioned the vetting process but always maintained that he was cleared to take the post. His decision was based on the vetting.

Now, thanks to the Guardian’s reporting, we know that Mandelson was vetted by the responsible Cabinet Office committee, and they concluded he should not be appointed. The Foreign Office overruled this decision, which is permitted, but is extremely unusual. Starmer claims that he did not know this and consequently sacked Sir Olly Robbins, the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office. David Lammy, who was the Foreign Secretary at the time, presumably, was not informed either.

Darren Jones, the leadership spokesman, put up a defence of Starmer, basically blaming the Foreign Office and the possibility that the ministry could overrule a vetting process. So he is hiding behind what he defines as a faulty process, claiming it allowed the Foreign Office not to tell the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about an overrule.

This assumes nothing was said to ministers or the Cabinet Office. Are the vetting people totally isolated from anyone else? Was nobody curious about such a high-profile case? Did the foreign minister at the time have no responsibility for what happened?

Nobody told me

As a Labour MP was reported as saying last night by the BBC, this all stretches credibility to a ‘breaking point’. Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, normally very cautious, has called for Starmer to resign as he has broken the ministerial code, which means any minister who knowingly misleads parliament should resign.

The Tories are demanding that he go too. Starmer is clearly going to use the ‘I had no idea, guv’ argument – that he did not know the facts, so did not deliberately mislead parliament or the public. The immediate scapegoating of Robbins fits with that plan.

The prime minister will make an official statement on Monday. Since he has supposedly known the truth about the failed vetting since Tuesday this is extraordinary because the code dictates a correction of false information given by a minister should be done as soon as possible.

He could have done that at Wednesday’s PM questions. Jones claimed that there were too many documents and other processes to go through for the PM to give a statement on Wednesday. Again, this seems to suggest that nobody in Westminster can work through the evening. Surely it is more a case of the government trying to get its story right over the next 5 days and ensuring no one steps out of line.

All through this affair we have seen a Labour leadership prefer to put its support for its favourite Labour Baron over and above defending women. Over a 1000 women were abused by Mandelson’s friend, the paedophile predator Epstein. Remember Starmer won power through the efforts of the McSweeney team who in turn was mentored by Mandelson.

He was groomed through the post–Corbyn leadership and its fraudulent ten promises by that team. Starmer’s political inexperience and lack of a longer-term political base were compensated for by hitching his wagon to McSweeney/Mandelson. Like some captain made by a Mafia Don, he could not be anything but loyal to him.

What happened to ‘Forsenic Keir’?

Vaunted for his forensic diligence and attention to detail as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer seems to have utterly lost all such skills during this affair which involves an investigative procedure. He will be banking on Lammy and Robbins staying loyal this weekend. Also he will want to keep certain documents out of the intelligence committee and certainly away from public scrutiny.

The Labour leadership will be using the international situation and Sir Keir’s supposedly brilliant diplomatic skils as the main argument against attempts to force him to quit. Indeed this argument has been used in recent weeks by people like Lucy Powell to dissuade Labour MPs from launching a challenge to him:

“Some kind of messy, bloody internal contest is not going to help us address those issues,’ she told the Financial Times.

Asked whether Labour members wanted a leadership contest, she added: ‘I think the membership would take a very dim view of that.g any leadership challenge following the May 7 elections. “

Even those MPs who favour a challenge will mostly accept the traditional Labourist line that you cannot have a challenge during an election period. However, it probably makes a leadership challenge after the May elections more likely, although not inevitable, given how wary the potential candidates are about making a move.

A ‘Reset’ was already underway

The previous phase of the Mandelson scandal led to McSweeney’s exit, and it was followed by the Gorton and Denton by-election disaster. In its wake, the Labour leadership was desperately trying for yet another reset to save Starmer. It trumpeted some of its modest but positive reforms, like the Better Labour Laws, the Renters’ Rights Act, increases in the minimum wage, and some welfare benefits.

Taking some distance from Trump’s war on Iran was also helping since the Tories and Reform were all for a much greater involvement. Generally, public opinion was against the war. Even some polls suggested a small upturn in Labour support. Efforts were made to work better with the growing number of critical MPs who had forced U-turns on some welfare cuts.

Phillipson’s educational SEND reforms were carefully packaged as increasing integration and not immediately dismantling the legal framework of support. Broad hints were given that Shabana Mahmood’s anti-migrant/refugee proposals were to be slightly moderated. Even the economic perspectives looked a little better.

Trump and Israel’s attacks on Iran and Lebanon have blown a hole in Labour’s strategy. Essentially, this is a junior partnership with corporate capital that will drive growth and generate resources for progressive policies on housing, health, education, and net zero. The IMF has just estimated that the British economy will be the worst hit in Europe. There could even be a recession if the war is prolonged.

Wes Streeting has just said that the only way to increase spending on defense is to cut welfare. Former Labour minister and NATO head, George Robertson, carried out a strategic defense review for this government and is leading a one-man campaign – backed by the military-industrial complex – to massively increase spending. He went so far as to directly denounce the government for dragging its feet. So the space for any Labour reset to pivot even slightly to the left is very much reduced.

New mash ups on the soft left

Another reset has been taking place on the left of Labour. The influence of the Socialist Campaign group has diminished, although MPs like John McDonnell are standing up for democratic rights, and Richard Burgon recently went to Cuba to speak out against the repression of democratic rights. Momentum, too, is a shadow of its former self, but is organising left slates of candidates for internal elections.

It is working more closely with the new soft-left Mainstream, supported by Burnham and composed of groups like Compass, which is strong on proportional representation. Compass has just published a paper proposing to rechristen the soft left as the ‘democratic left’:

The “democratic left” encompasses those who endorse Burnham’s proposed solution to Britain’s and Labour’s problems: more democracy. More democracy in the electoral system, in the regions, in the workplace and in the Labour Party. (New Statesman)

Tribune is reorganising too, but has a more traditional bread and butter approach and is less keen on the democracy agenda. Another group of MPs led by Anneliese Dodds has written a collection of papers published by the Fabians, which emphasises a euro-positive approach, but less Atlanticist, critical of big tech, and looking at reforms of energy pricing

This relative ferment expresses an understanding that Starmer could be gone before the next election. Angela Rayner in some ways could be well placed if she moves decisively after May since Streeting recently seems to have stepped back for now, saying Starmer should be given a chance but conscious his brand is being damaged by the Mandelson affair.

Burnham still has not got a seat, so Rayner has a chance in the short term. She shows loyalty but makes critical policy statements, such as criticising aspects of the Mahmood crackdown on migrants.

Soft left is not Corbynist

Any candidate from the Socialist Campaign group will not have the numbers to be nominated so realistically we are talking about a soft left candidate or candidates taking on one or other from the right.

None of the likely candidates has a programme that breaks with some form of partnership with corporate capital, even if it may include more radical elements than the current Labour strategy. They have all been very weak on Palestine solidarity, denouncing the repression of Palestine action, defending jury trials, or putting forward radical redistribution policies.

However, a change to someone like Burnham would open up more space for Labor activists still in the party. His policy (if he sticks to it) to introduce proportional representation would also benefit the left. Overall, it is underwhelming compared to the policies proposed by Clive Lewis in his recent Guardian article, which mirror much of what Zack Polanski from the Greens is saying. But Lewis will not have the nominations.

Many Labour left activists who might have jumped ship if Your Party had really taken off have remained in the party. They are often sitting on their hands, not mobilised in these elections, and waiting for a leadership challenge.

People I know in Labour understand that the better the Greens and independent socialists do in May, the better their chances of a contest to oust Starmer. If Starmer hangs on or if a right-winger wins in his place, then it is more likely that more will leave – perhaps local left independent groups set up by ex-Labour to the Greens or councilors.

Left must build trust in politics

Will a soft left replacement for Starmer stop the Greens’ surge, further eating into Labour support? Possibly, but success in the upcoming elections will further consolidate the Greens. The heritage of the present government’s record will still hang heavily on the Labour brand. Recent polls show Labour still at around 20% or lower, with one poll even showing it behind the Greens. Currently, 67% want Starmer gone and only 18% want him to stay (recent AJL Partners poll).

Starmer’s duplicity over Mandelson just reinforces the general feeling among many people that politicians are all the same. Trust in politics is further eroded. For people on the left we need to work in communities, in our unions and elsewhere to show in practice that there is an alternative, that organised united struggles can win, can push back government policies.

Palestine solidarity has made a difference – the apartheid Israeli state has lost a lot of its historic support. Reform and the far right may be reaching a ceiling of support as huge mass demonstrations start to have an impact. People are voting for people to the left of Labour in ever-increasing numbers. We can do this in elections, too; there are lots of candidates we can support who share this approach.

Postscript from someone who knows about vetting

From Callum Miller on X who has experience of this area:

Scenario 1: someone in No10 let it be known that Mandelson HAD TO be appointed. When he failed his DV, someone senior in the FCDO decided that was not acceptable and insisted it was revised, without telling No10.

Scenario 2: Mandelson failed DV. No10 was informed, did not tell the PM, and someone senior in the FCDO insisted it be revised.

Scenario 3: Mandelson failed DV. No10 was informed, told the PM, and Starmer insisted it be revised.

None of these are good scenarios for Starmer. Either there is a culture of fear between No10 and FCDO that overrides national security concerns (1) or No10 overrides national security concerns without telling Starmer (2) or Starmer has lied (3).

Dave Kellaway is on the Editorial Board of Anti*Capitalist Resistance, a contributor to International Viewpoint and Europe Solidaire Sans Frontieres.

Starmer’s Reset crashes into Mandy