LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s position hung by a thread on Monday as he tried to persuade his Labour Party’s lawmakers not to kick him out of his job after just a year and a half in office.
Starmer lost his chief of staff on Sunday and is rapidly shedding support from Labour legislators after revelations about the relationship between former British ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer is due to address Labour lawmakers behind closed doors later Monday in an attempt to rebuild some of his shattered authority.
The political storm stems from Starmer’s decision in 2024 to appoint Mandelson to Britain’s most important diplomatic post, despite knowing he had ties to Epstein.
Starmer fired Mandelson in September after emails were published showing that he maintained a friendship with Epstein after the late financier’s 2008 conviction for sex offenses involving a minor. Critics say Starmer should have known better than to appoint Mandelson, 72, a contentious figure whose career has been studded with scandals over money or ethics.
A new trove of Epstein files released in the United States has brought more details about the relationship, and new pressure on Starmer.
Starmer apologized last week for “having believed Mandelson’s lies.”
He promised to release documentation related to Mandelson’s appointment, which the government says will show that Mandelson misled officials about his ties to Epstein.
Police are investigating Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office over documents suggesting he passed sensitive government information to Epstein a decade and a half ago. The offense carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Mandelson has not been arrested or charged, and does not face any allegations of sexual misconduct.
Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, took the fall for the decision by quitting on Sunday, saying that “I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice.”
McSweeney has been Starmer’s most important aide since he became Labour leader in 2020, and is considered a key architect of Labour’s landslide July 2024 election victory. But some in the party blame him for a series of missteps since then.
Some Labour officials hope that his departure will buy the prime minister time to rebuild trust with the party and the country. Senior lawmaker Emily Thornberry said McSweeney had become a “divisive figure” and his departure brought the opportunity for a reset.
She said Starmer is “a good leader in that he is strong and clear. I think that he needs to step up a bit more than he has.”
Others say McSweeney’s departure leaves Starmer weak and isolated.
Opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said Starmer “has made bad decision after bad decision” and “his position now is untenable.”
Since winning office, Starmer has struggled to deliver promised economic growth, repair tattered public services and ease the cost of living. He pledged a return to honest government after 14 years of scandal-tarred Conservative rule, but has been beset by missteps and U-turns over welfare cuts and other unpopular policies.
Labour consistently lags behind the hard-right Reform UK party in opinion polls, and its failure to improve had sparked talk of a leadership challenge, even before the Mandelson revelations.
Under Britain’s parliamentary system, prime ministers can change without the need for a national election. If Starmer is challenged or resigns, it would trigger an election for the Labour leadership. The winner would become prime minister.
The Conservatives went through three prime ministers between national elections in 2019 and 2024. One, Liz Truss, lasted just 49 days in office.
Starmer was elected on a promise to end the political chaos that roiled the Conservatives’ final years in power. That proved easier said than done.
Labour lawmaker Clive Efford said Starmer’s critics should “be careful what you wish for.”
“I don’t think people took to the changes in prime minister when the Tories were in power,” he told the BBC. “It didn’t do them any good.”