On a day like today, one might think the Prime Minister would have a better chance of being believed if he claimed his dog had consumed his homework. It seems that Keir Starmer may not have come to terms with the fact that he doesn’t actually own a dog. His apparent forgetfulness and disinterest appear to be a form of theatrical performance, reminiscent of Boris Johnson’s antics, which Starmer might even take as a compliment.
This situation presents a conundrum. According to Occam’s razor, we are left with two possibilities: either Number 10 believes we are gullible, or everyone working there is naïve. The excuses have been flowing freely, yet many individuals have already made their judgments.
It is hard to fathom that anyone could be so oblivious as to neglect the security vetting of a person who is widely recognized as contentious. This individual had previously been dismissed from the cabinet twice for violating the ministerial code and continued to associate with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor. One might wonder if Starmer refrained from requesting the vetting report because he had a premonition that Peter Mandelson had failed the evaluation.
The narrative surrounding this incident is perplexing. Let’s entertain the notion that Downing Street’s account holds true. This would imply that senior officials concealed the security vetting and endorsed Mandelson’s appointment purely under the assumption that it would please No 10, risking their careers for something that was likely to be uncovered. The primary rule in Mandelson’s universe is that he invariably brings others down with him.
What could have motivated the Foreign Office officials to act so foolishly? Or were they simply tasked with relaying only what the Prime Minister wished to hear? “Don’t worry, Keir. When the president criticizes you, it’s a sign of his affection—just the tactics of a seasoned pickup artist,” they might have suggested.
To believe that everything transpired exactly as Downing Street suggests requires a collective denial of reality. It would be a plunge into an alternate, surreal realm where nothing aligns with truth. Accepting this would also suggest that those governing the nation are even less competent than we had previously assumed, which is a chilling thought. It raises the possibility that our politicians are merely opportunists who have been improvising all along. Thus, either Starmer misled Parliament, or he is even less effective than previously thought—neither scenario is tenable.
Meanwhile, Starmer found himself in Paris for a virtual meeting with Emmanuel Macron, gathering with like-minded leaders who felt compelled to appear proactive regarding the Iran conflict, despite lacking actionable solutions. The entire affair came across as futile, given that none were in a position to effect real change.
Later in the morning, Starmer delivered a brief statement in a park. “It is astonishing that I was not informed about Peter Mandelson’s failure in security vetting upon his appointment,” he began. Indeed, but even more astonishing is that he did not take the initiative to review the conclusion of that vetting. Such matters should not be trivial, especially considering they pertain to the appointment of an ambassador to the United States and a president known for his narcissism.
Starmer continued, “That I was not informed of his failed vetting while assuring Parliament that due process was followed is inexcusable.” How he constructs such claims is baffling. The essential question he fails to confront is why he provided assurances to the Commons without verifying their accuracy. He seemed more concerned with creating an idealized version of reality. It appears he operates as though he bears no responsibility for his statements. Perhaps soon he’ll claim that he has been replaced by artificial intelligence.
Then came the pièce de résistance: “Not only was I uninformed, but no minister was informed, and I am absolutely furious about that.” Recently, Starmer has expressed his anger frequently. There is so much he remains unaware of and so much more he should know. If only there were someone in charge—perhaps a Prime Minister—who could ensure civil servants kept ministers properly informed.
In light of this, Starmer stated that he learned of Mandelson’s vetting failure on Tuesday night but somehow neglects to inform his Foreign Secretary. It was only when the Guardian broke the story on Thursday that Yvette Cooper became aware. The disconnect between the left and right hands in government is glaring. The same oversight applied to Starmer’s Chief Secretary, Dazza, who also remained uninformed. If Starmer was genuinely outraged about being misled, he could have mentioned it during Prime Minister’s Questions that Wednesday. Just a thought. Integrity, truth, and sound judgment are crucial—just a thought.
This left Starmer to make a few remarks—no questions permitted—at the conclusion of the Iran summit. He was, he asserted, “absolutely furious” that no one had informed him of the ongoing conflict between Iran and the US. He threatened that heads would roll at the Foreign Office for this oversight. He was even considering demanding Olly Robbins resign again. Twice in two days. That ought to send a message. He also expressed his anger over the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, claiming that civil servants had removed all maps of the Middle East from Downing Street without his knowledge, and he hadn’t realized how narrow the strait was, though the name should have provided a clue.
However, this might be the best Starmer can expect for now. Back home, criticism is mounting. Every opposition party leader is calling for his resignation, and he appears to have lost the confidence of the public. Few believe him, even if he is being truthful. The upcoming confrontation in Parliament on Monday promises to be dramatic and could very well mark a pivotal moment for Starmer.
