Keir Starmer’s debacle last summer Underwent welfare changes It was considered a low point for his government, after promised concessions failed to convince his rebel backbenchers. Now, shockingly, it has happened again.
If history doesn’t repeat itself, with the row over the release of government documents Peter Mandelsononce again Stormer thanks a certain Angela Rayner, in part, for digging him out of a political hole.
The then Deputy Prime Minister bluntly stated his submission to Downing Street with welfare reforms. labor MPs were not enough to prevent a potential Commons defeat, prompting Number 10 to abandon most of the plans.
On Wednesday, Rayner argued that the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) should review the Mandelson files, not Number 10, for the decision. Finally accepted Government by its amendment to the Conservative motion.
To add to the parallels, another prominent figure pushing for an ISC compromise is Meg Hillier, a senior Labor backbencher and one of the leaders of the welfare rebellion.
There are differences. Welfare schemes are drawn up over months and are a vital part of the government programme. The confusion stems from the fact that Starmer did not know what Mandelson did or did before he was made ambassador to Washington. Instead, US officials released new files about Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
But the consequences are the same: a weakened Downing Street, and Labor MPs increasingly aware of their own power and the utter blunders of Starmer and the team around him. And like welfare, it’s a delayed crisis, not eliminated.
While MPs’ emotions can often be as contagious and overblown as boarding school during exam season, the reaction of many Labor backbenchers to No 10’s misjudgment against Mandelson was genuinely angry, a mood not helped by the Conservatives’ apparent joy and victory over the issue.
It was the Tories’ decision to use one of their sporadic opposition day debates to demand the release of documents setting out Mandelson’s appointment that sparked the drama on Wednesday.
Opposition day debates are irrelevant for well-functioning governments. They are treacherous to those with their backs to the wall – that A chaotic response A very standard Labor motion on fracking that demolished Liz Truss.
And after the concessions, backbenchers want action: a speedy and comprehensive release of Mandelson’s timetable, as some MPs hope, spells out Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, Mandelson’s main advocate inside Number 10.
But it’s a complicated process, given the ongoing police investigation into whether Mandelson passed inside information to Epstein, which Starmer cautioned against being biased.
Similarly, if MPs were hoping for a full explanation of how Mandelson was vetted for the job, they will be disappointed, as releasing even the slightest bit of personal information about him would breach data protection rules.
Downing Street, in a common tactic for tight-lipped governments, hopes the boring approach will take the urgency out of the debate, as the ISC pokes holes in large volumes of documentation and decides what can or cannot be released.
However, this is only a temporary solution to what all Labor backbenchers now regard as a widespread malaise: the inability of Starmer and his team to regularly make the right call.
They argue that a prime minister with better political judgment, long history of controversies and known Epstein links, would have ignored calls to send Donald Trump to court and stuck with the highly successful incumbent, career diplomat Karen Pearce, or sought an alternative.
Starmer did not, so the Prime Minister spent the questions Hunted by Kemi Badenoch It wasn’t until he finally agreed yes, he learned the extent and longevity of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, who offered him one of the most prestigious jobs in the public sector.
Now we have another U-turn, with Badenoch triumphant and a jolly-looking Rayner holding court in the Commons corridor. Many of Starmer’s MPs are wondering how many more chances he can get.
