A Labour MP has hit out at Sir Keir Starmer, saying he “doesn’t seem up to the job”, as the PM scrambled to defend his under-fire chief of staff Morgan McSweeney amid growing pressure over his involvement in the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Sir Keir insisted he had confidence in Mr McSweeney following reports he personally pushed for Lord Mandelson, despite concerns over his links with Jeffrey Epstein.
Britain’s ambassador to the US was dramatically sacked on Thursday amid new revelations about his relationship with the convicted paedophile – raising serious questions about the prime minister’s judgement, leading Labour MP Clive Lewis to become the first backbencher to publicly call for the prime minister to go.
It came as claims about Mr McSweeney’s involvement raised questions over whether or not he is the right person for the top Downing Street job.
No 10 rowed in behind him on Friday morning, saying, “Of course the prime minister has confidence in his top team.”
But former Labour home secretary David Blunkett called on Sir Keir to “widen the circle” of people around him as he warned the prime minister that “politics is a rough ride”.
In what will be seen as a reference to Mr McSweeney, who entered Downing Street for the first time with Sir Keir, he said the Labour leader should gather around him “people with experience, people who are seasoned politicians, who he can test things with … Actually counterweighting the younger people, the less experienced people who gather around him.”
Mr Lewis, the MP for Norwich South, who is on the left of the party, told the BBC’s Week In Westminster programme: “You see a Labour prime minister who feels that he’s lost control within the first year.
“This isn’t navel-gazing. This is me thinking about my constituents, this country, and the fact that the person who is eight points ahead of us is Nigel Farage. That terrifies me.
“It terrifies my constituents, and it terrifies a lot of people in this country. We don’t have the luxury of carrying on this way with someone who I think, increasingly, I’m sorry to say, just doesn’t seem up to the job.”
Earlier, former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggested to Times Radio that the PM would have to decide if Mr McSweeney was “a suitable adviser for the future, depending on what did actually happen”.
Meanwhile, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch immediately seized on the reports, urging both Sir Keir and Mr McSweeney to explain themselves to the public.
She said: “These latest revelations point yet again to the terrible judgement of Keir Starmer and why it is imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment are released immediately.
“If it is true that Starmer or his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney overruled the security services, as has been alleged, they need immediately to explain to the public why they did so.”
One senior Labour figure told The Independent that Sir Keir should look again at his No 10 operation in the wake of Lord Mandelson’s sacking. “I don’t come across any Morgan McSweeney fans,” they said. “His contempt for MPs is well known.”
Meanwhile, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell warned: “A choice is emerging for Keir. Either McSweeney goes or he does.”
A Labour MP, who asked not to be named for fear of repercussions, told The Independent: “Should Morgan McSweeney be in Downing Street? No, of course he should not. He is part of a toxic political culture around the PM.”
Lord Mandelson’s sacking came after a string of shocking revelations, including emails appearing to show him offering support for Epstein as he faced charges of child sex offences.
Downing Street has insisted that the “depth and extent” of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was “materially different” to what was known at the time of his appointment.
Emails published on Wednesday afternoon included passages in which Lord Mandelson had told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
It is understood that the vetting process for ambassadors is closed to ministers, meaning that neither Sir Keir nor the then foreign secretary David Lammy had access to detailed information on it.
Downing Street could not say whether or not the emails that were revealed in the press this week formed part of that vetting process – meaning he may have been approved by the vetting service despite his correspondence with Epstein.
The Conservatives have since said they plan to try to force a vote in parliament to make the government publish all the information relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment, piling further pressure on the government to reveal exactly what the prime minister knew and when.
And as questions swirled about the PM’s judgement, after two resignations in less than a week of politicians he publicly backed, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee called for it to be allowed to vet the next US ambassador to Washington.
“We asked to do this with Mandelson,” Dame Emily Thornberry said, arguing the government should welcome the scrutiny.
On Friday, a cabinet minister admitted Lord Mandelson’s appointment was “high risk, high reward”.
Douglas Alexander, the Scotland secretary, said that all three of the last Labour prime ministers had recognised that Mandelson was a “high risk” appointment but that he could bring “very high rewards”, later saying that the appointment was a “judgment” that an “unconventional presidential administration” required an “unconventional ambassador”.
