British PM Starmer’s political fate rests with top UK bureaucrat he fired

LONDON – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer did what he could on April 20 to weather a parliamentary showdown on his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal. On April 21, it may rest with a bureaucrat little known outside Westminster to decide his fate.

Mr Starmer is halfway through two bruising days of public testimony on his catastrophic decision to appoint Mr Mandelson as US ambassador, a call that is threatening to bring about his downfall.

A committee appearance by Mr Olly Robbins, who Mr Starmer fired last week as the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, now presents the most dangerous moment of Mr Starmer’s premiership so far.

Facing 2½ hours of questions in the main chamber of the House of Commons on April 20, Mr Starmer insisted that neither he, nor any minister or member of his office – not even the then head of the civil service Chris Wormald – had been informed that Mr Mandelson’s appointment was opposed by security vetting officials.

The official who did know, but apparently disregarded those objections and approved Mr Mandelson’s clearance without passing it higher up the chain, was Mr Robbins, a 51-year-old career civil servant who has held a number of senior roles. These include Brexit negotiator under former prime minister Theresa May and running the offices of former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

In a conversation last week, Mr Starmer said Mr Robbins told him he felt he was prevented by confidentiality rules from sharing the information provided by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for assessing Mr Mandelson’s suitability, with him. Mr Starmer said he disagreed and fired Mr Robbins, calling the official’s decision to keep the situation hidden from ministers “unforgivable”.

“There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed sensitive vetting information,” Mr Starmer told the Commons. “It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers.”

Mr Starmer’s appearance in the Commons saw him live to fight another day. He was backed by a smattering of loyalist lawmakers who echoed his anger that he was kept in the dark, and just eight of the 34 Labour MPs who intervened asked questions that appeared critical of the Prime Minister, according to a Bloomberg tally.

Mr Starmer came under heavier criticism from Conservative opposition leader Kemi Badenoch and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who have both suggested he should resign.

Mr Robbins’ own evidence poses two primary dangers to Mr Starmer.

The first is on the process. If he confirms that he did not tell Mr Starmer or any of his officials about the vetting failure, that would appear to give Mr Starmer some respite, allowing him to argue that if he did mislead the House of Commons in his repeated assertions that “due process” was followed, it was unintentional and based on the information he had.

An ally of Mr Starmer said he should not lose his job over something neither he nor anyone around him knew anything about and therefore could not have acted to resolve. 

However, if Mr Robbins were to say he did share the vetting result with someone in Mr Starmer’s team or the senior civil service, it would call Mr Starmer’s own evidence into question.

The second risk for the Prime Minister is that Mr Robbins says he felt pressured by Mr Starmer or his operation in 10 Downing Street to rubber-stamp Mr Mandelson’s appointment, or that it was presented to him as a fait accompli. 

Mr Starmer told the Commons he decided on Dec 18, 2024, to appoint Mr Mandelson, and the announcement was made two days later, after “due diligence” that stopped short of full security vetting, which then began on Dec 23.

“For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in post,” Mr Starmer said. “That was the process in place at the time.”

However, that left Mr Robbins in a tricky position when the vetting result came in. If he were to tell lawmakers on April 21 that Mr Starmer or his team had said they wanted the Mr Mandelson appointment to proceed and implied that he should disregard concerns raised in a due diligence report about his business links to Russia and China, Mr Starmer can expect further intense scrutiny and questions about his position.

Most Cabinet members remained quiet on April 20, declining to take the opportunity to publicly back Mr Starmer as they did the last time the Mr Mandelson saga erupted in February.

A Labour Member of Parliament on the left of the party told Bloomberg Mr Starmer’s position was untenable but that they thought he would survive until a set of local elections on May 7. Labour has placed fourth in several recent national polls, which point to the party being trounced in May. 

But while many on the left want Mr Starmer out, some do not want to deliver the critical blow now because they want to wait for Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to become an MP and therefore be eligible for a leadership contest, they said. 

Mr Starmer blocked Mr Burnham from standing in a special election in February, which Labour ultimately lost, but may find it harder to bar him should another opportunity arise. Other contenders – including former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Health Secretary Wes Streeting – do not yet appear ready to challenge. 

One Labour MP said that while they doubted the party would move against Mr Starmer this week, it would factor into people’s consideration after the local elections, when Labour are expected to lose large numbers of council seats, as well as control of the Welsh Parliament, known as the Senedd. Then, Mr Starmer’s internal rivals may decide to strike.

A Starmer loyalist described the situation as incredibly grim and said hostile questions about why Mr Starmer did not ask more questions about Mr Mandelson’s vetting at the time were valid. 

Mr Starmer’s Commons appearance on April 20 was par for the course, the person said, and he did what a good lawyer does: talked it out. Now, his future may come down to the strength of language in the testimony from the next protagonist on April 21: Mr Robbins. BLOOMBERG