Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to grant the request from numerous MPs, including the leader of the opposition, for a debate on whether to refer the prime minister to the Committee of Privileges.
He could only have reasonably refused if the move by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and others had been “frivolous”, which it was not, although the timing, just before the May elections, is hardly coincidental. It is, in any case, a debate that the prime minister should relish.
That is not only because Labour’s huge majority means the motion is almost certainly doomed, but because the prime minister will once again be able to make his case, which is a strong one. He has acknowledged he made a grievous error in appointing Peter Mandelson to be Britain’s ambassador to Washington. He has taken responsibility for it and apologised.
The charge is a simple and grave one – that the prime minister’s statements to parliament about Lord Mandelson had been intentionally or recklessly misleading. If so, how serious was that contempt of parliament, and how quickly were any misleading remarks corrected?
But he did not lie to parliament. From what has emerged so far, it is perfectly apparent that the prime minister did not mislead the House, knowingly or otherwise, when he said that due process had been followed. Not only that, but security clearance vetting had been cleared, and – crucially – he was unaware of the doubts thrown up about Lord Mandelson’s suitability during the Foreign Office’s “developed vetting” procedure. No testimony or documentary evidence has emerged to suggest otherwise.
It is therefore not good enough for Ms Badenoch or Sir Ed Davey, his principal tormentors, to blithely declare that he “must” have known. Indeed, their “star witness”, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that not only had he refused to tell the prime minister about the unfavourable recommendations he’d been presented with, he hadn’t told anyone else, and never would for fear of compromising those very due processes that help protect national security.
Contrary to the taunts of his critics, Sir Keir had asked, via the then cabinet secretary, for the guidance. But Sir Olly had merely informed him that “due process” had been followed and that Lord Mandelson had cleared the FCDO vetting process. This was because it was Sir Olly, and not Sir Keir Starmer, nor any other minister or official, who had “overruled” the security agency’s recommendation.
It may all seem beyond belief, but that is precisely the prime minister’s argument – he should have been told; he wasn’t, and that failure by the Foreign Office was, so far as he was concerned, a sacking offence. Sir Olly’s account has been corroborated by serving civil servants, and, in essence, will probably be backed by his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, and Morgan McSweeney, formerly Sir Keir’s chief of staff, this week.
Whether his dismissal was an unduly harsh punishment for Sir Olly and contrary to employment law is a different question. But Sir Keir was given a credible account of his behaviour, even if others cannot bring themselves to believe it.
As Barry Gardiner, an independent-minded Labour backbencher said last week, there may be many reasons to want to oust Sir Keir, as he does. But the claim that he misled parliament is not one of them.
The case for Sir Keir Starmer’s defence is robust. And it goes further than simply relitigating the facts. Those with the best interests of governing the country in mind must see, with calmer heads, that no better credible alternative to the prime minister is available within the Labour Party – or outside it – at this time.
No one would deny that Sir Keir has made his mistakes and misjudgements. But it is not immediately obvious which, if any, of his many rivals for the job would have performed significantly better. Presentation of policy and strategy has been poor, and there have been far too many calamitous errors of judgement and U-turns; but Sir Keir has got the more fundamental things right. These are the struggle to put the public finances on a sustainable footing, and – most crucially – keeping Britain as far as possible out of the war in Iran.
There is plenty of plotting going on, and there are more than enough alternative prime ministers to justify the sometimes overheated speculation about leadership challenges, but the fact remains there is no one available who would turn Labour’s fortunes around and implement policies in the long-term national interest. Despite the Greens’ sizeable protest vote, the country is not crying out for a lurch to the left.
Some reports say that cabinet rivals could coalesce around one compromise figure so that there would be no messy leadership contest and thus an “orderly transition”. The nearest precedent to that was the somewhat disorderly manner that Tony Blair was pushed out by allies of Gordon Brown in 2007. Elected unopposed, Mr Brown enjoyed a coronation and a brief honeymoon before everything went wrong – hardly all Mr Brown’s fault to be fair – and Labour went on to lose the next election, spending the next 14 years in opposition. Similarly, numerous fractious leadership changes failed to save the Conservatives from being smacked at the last general election.
Sir Keir’s rivals, none as substantial as Mr Brown, should be careful what they wish for.
