'He Cannot Conceivably Continue': U.K. Prime Minister Starmer Faces Growing Calls to Resign

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has fiercely denied accusations that he deliberately misled lawmakers over his appointment of former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson.

"No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the House should have had should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House," Starmer said Monday when asked if he "inadvertently misled” the lower house of parliament.

The rousing session in Westminster unfolded amid mounting calls for Starmer—the leader of the ruling Labour Party—to resign, after it was revealed last week that Mandelson failed the security vetting in January 2025, only for his appointment as ambassador to go ahead the following month anyway on account of the Foreign Office overruling the decision.

Olly Robbins, a top civil servant at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office (FCDO), was sacked after the sequence of events came to light.

Starmer denied having prior knowledge of the initial failed vetting process, telling parliament that “a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material” from him.

The embattled Prime Minister said he only learned last Tuesday that “the Foreign Office officials granted [Mandelson] developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting [UKSV].”

“If I had known before he took up his post that UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment,” he insisted.

Starmer said that the correct vetting process had been followed and that a review of the process took place in September, after Mandelson was sacked from the role when a newly-released batch of files revealed he shared a closer than previously disclosed relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But Starmer’s defense did little to abate calls for him to resign, with leader of the Conservative Party Kemi Badenoch telling him his "reputation is at stake.”

Taking issue with the timeline of events put forward, opposition leader Badenoch argued that if Starmer found out about the failed vetting on Tuesday, he should have told parliament at the “earliest opportunity,” in accordance with ministerial code, which she argued should have been during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

And it’s not only members of the opposition who are holding Starmer to task, as he is also facing stern criticism from some of his Labour peers.

As the U.K. leader navigates the growing crisis, here’s what to know about the series of events that led to Monday’s tense parliamentary session and where things currently stand.

The controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson

Mandelson was announced as the incoming ambassador to the U.S. by Starmer in late 2024.

Having served in a number of cabinet and advisory positions under multiple Labour governments since the 1990s, the seasoned politician was viewed by some as a strong pick—although his previous resignations did raise some concern.

In 1998, he resigned as trade and industry secretary after a secret loan from a fellow minister was revealed. In 2001, he resigned again, this time from his position as Northern Ireland minister, over allegations of misconduct related to a passport application for the Hinduja brothers. An inquiry later cleared him of wrongdoing.

He was also known to have had some type of relationship with Epstein, which Starmer initially defended, prior to additional information coming to light.

“The Ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with him [Epstein]… I have confidence in him and he’s playing an important role in the U.K.-U.S. relationship,” said the Prime Minister. 

Mandelson officially started the role in February 2025, but in September he was fired after emails between himself and Epstein were published, unveiling a closer than previously divulged relationship. The correspondence also showed that Mandelson maintained a relationship with Epstein after the disgraced financier was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008.

Upon his dismissal, Mandelson told embassy staff that he felt "utterly awful" about his "association" with Epstein.

In January, when over 3.5 million more pages of Epstein files were released, further correspondence came to light that proved even more damning.

Mandelson, when serving as Business Secretary under former Prime Minister Gordon Brown from 2008-2010, appeared to tell Epstein he would lobby other government officials in an effort to reduce a tax on bankers’ bonuses.
In another email, he appeared to have forwarded an internal government report to Epstein which showed ways the U.K. might raise funds after the 2008 financial crisis. He also seemingly tipped off Epstein that Brown would be resigning in 2010 and that the E.U. would announce a €500 billion bailout to stem the Greek debt crisis.

In February, Mandelson was arrested “on suspicion of misconduct in public office” and was released after questioning, set to remain under investigation.

A government inquiry into the former ambassador’s appointment to Washington was launched, with initial findings published in March.

Documents revealed that Starmer was warned of the “reputational risks” associated with Mandelson due to his continued relationship with Epstein. 

More findings are due to follow once the police investigation is concluded.

Read More: Mandelson's Lawyers Say His Arrest Was Prompted by 'Baseless Suggestion' He Was a Flight Risk

Starmer faces mounting calls to resign following the latest Mandelson-related revelation

In a significant blow for the Prime Minister, one of his Labour peers has joined calls for him to resign.

“He cannot conceivably continue as a credible Prime Minister any longer,” Lord Maurice Glasman told the Telegraph. “If you can’t own your mistakes, you can’t move. All he needed to say was ‘we made an error.’ But he’s completely stuck in saying he hasn’t done anything wrong, so this can’t go away.”

Suspended Labour lawmaker Diane Abbott also criticized Starmer’s handling of the situation. 

“Ordinary people don't really care about process and procedure. They want transparency,” she said. “He [Starmer]insists on saying ‘nobody told me anything, nobody told me.’ The question is, why didn't the Prime Minister ask?” 

On Monday, opposition leader Badenoch doubled down on her argument that Starmer has misled parliament.

“I'm only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others,” she said, referring to a previous occasion where Starmer stated if a Prime Minister misleads parliament, they should resign.

“Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?” she queried aloud. 

Badenoch previously said that Starmer’s position was “untenable” following Robbins’ dismissal. 

Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey has voiced similar concerns.

“He blames his officials. He says he had no idea. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power,” Davey said in the House of Commons Monday. 

“We need a government of honesty, integrity and accountability. So will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way he can help to deliver that is to resign?”