Fresh evidence from a senior civil servant has cast serious doubt on Keir Starmer’s claims over the controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson, exposing what critics say is yet another example of a Prime Minister playing fast and loose with the truth.
Sir Philip Barton, the former head of the Foreign Office, revealed that he was effectively ordered to push through Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the United States, despite clear concerns and without proper consultation.
Giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee this morning, Sir Philip directly contradicted Starmer’s assertion that “no pressure existed whatsoever” during the process. Instead, he described being sidelined and instructed to proceed regardless.
“At no point did anyone consult me, ask me,” Sir Philip told the committee. “I was presented with a decision and told to get on with it. There was no space, you know that.”
The blunt testimony raises serious questions about the Prime Minister’s credibility, particularly as MPs prepare to vote on whether he should face a formal investigation for potentially misleading Parliament.
Pressure from No 10
Sir Philip made clear that the urgency came from the very top of government. A letter from Nin Pandit, Starmer’s principal private secretary, urged officials to move “at pace” to install Mandelson in Washington before the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2025.
“That in effect is the top of the Government saying the Prime Minister has decided he wants Mandelson as ambassador and he wants it done in that timescale,” Sir Philip said.
He added: “No one in the FCDO working on this could have been in any doubt of the urgency of the issue and the importance that No 10 and the Prime Minister attached to Mandelson being in DC in very short order.”
While Sir Philip noted there was no direct pressure on the outcome of the vetting itself, he was unequivocal that there was “absolutely … pressure to get everything done as quickly as possible.”
That distinction is unlikely to save Starmer politically. The central claim he made to MPs, that there was no pressure at all, now appears plainly at odds with the evidence.
Due process ignored
Sir Philip also dismantled the Prime Minister’s defence that “full due process” had been followed. In normal circumstances, vetting precedes any public announcement. In this case, the order was reversed.
“The normal order is vetting and then announcement,” he said. “The timing of the announcement was driven and decided by No 10.”
Mandelson’s appointment was announced on December 20, 2024. Vetting only began three days later.
Sir Philip further revealed that Downing Street appeared largely uninterested in the substance of the vetting process, focusing instead on how quickly it could be completed.
“It was: ‘Fine, he needs vetting, let’s make sure it’s done in time’,” he said.
That approach is particularly alarming given concerns raised about Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, which Sir Philip said he had flagged to No 10.
Mounting political fallout
The fallout is intensifying. Lindsay Hoyle has confirmed that MPs will be allowed to vote on whether the privileges committee should launch an inquiry into whether Starmer misled Parliament.
Such an investigation would mirror the process that ultimately forced the resignation of Boris Johnson, a comparison that will not be lost on Labour MPs.
Meanwhile, further testimony has reinforced the sense of a government scrambling to justify an indefensible decision. Sir Philip confirmed that the Cabinet Office had even questioned whether vetting was necessary at all, an approach he described as “odd and insufficient”.
A Prime Minister under scrutiny
The committee is also due to hear from Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, who resigned earlier this year over his role in the scandal.
Critics argue that the rush to install Mandelson was politically motivated, with suggestions that Starmer wanted him in place to influence US approval of the Chagos deal, a claim that adds yet another layer of controversy.
In a scathing intervention, Kemi Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of hiding behind bureaucracy while misleading the public.
She wrote: “He misled Parliament by claiming due process was followed. Month after month, he gave half-answers, ducked the point, and hoped that a mixture of jargon, delay and officialese would make the problem go away.”
Her remarks reflect a growing perception that this is no minor procedural dispute, but a serious constitutional issue about honesty and accountability at the highest level of government.
Questions that will not go away
Starmer’s defence, that process was followed and no pressure was applied, is increasingly difficult to sustain in light of mounting evidence to the contrary.
Why was the appointment announced before vetting? Why were warnings seemingly brushed aside? And why has each new explanation only deepened the contradictions?
For a Prime Minister who has sought to present himself as a model of integrity, the Mandelson affair is rapidly becoming a defining test, one that he is, so far, struggling to pass.
