4 hours ago
8
Keir Starmer’s public image is one of stolid caution. This was something deliberately crafted at the start of his leadership of the Labour party to put him into sharp contrast with the charismatic but chaotic then prime minister, Boris Johnson. Starmer is – we were repeatedly told – forensic. He’s a details man who plays by the book.
However, look more closely and you will see that Starmer is actually something of a political risk-taker. The hiring – and now firing – of Peter Mandelson is just the latest case in point.
Mandelson was appointed as ambassador to the US despite what was already known about his links to Jeffrey Epstein. That there might be more to come out was a risk that Starmer was clearly willing to take.
For a while, this seemed to be paying off. All reports were that Mandelson was doing a good job of building an unexpectedly warm relationship between the Labour government and Maga world. This may seem distasteful to many, but it was judged to ensure that Britain was harmed as little as possible by the unpredictable occupant of the White House.
But what has come out in the past few days has turned stomachs and embarrassed the prime minister to the point that Mandelson was finally fired – despite it being so close to Trump’s state visit, the details of which Mandeslon was instrumental in negotiating.
At PMQs yesterday, Starmer’s buttoned-up persona and his risk-taking one were both on display – this time to his detriment. He took a leap by vocally standing by Mandelson, a stance that became untenable only a few hours later.
At the same time, the way he fell back on the fact that Mandelson was vetted for the role leaned into the worst parts of his reputation for rigidity. While an unusually sure-footed Kemi Badenoch asked questions about judgment, Starmer gave answers about process. It gave him the appearance of a middle manager following protocol, rather than a leader able to respond to the political moment.
Starmer’s risk-taking side has, in the past, led to some spectacular pay-offs: recall his offer to resign if fined over “currygate”. But that was a risk that worked with the grain of his public persona. His defence of Mandelson simply did not fit with the image of “champion of law and order” that Starmer cultivates. It is, in part, this disconnect that calls his political acumen into question.
Not only has the prime minister lost this key ambassador at the worst possible time, but – by supporting him for longer than was viable – he also gets no credit for eventually firing him. This “worst of both worlds” ending seems to demonstrate a lack of political dexterity.
I started my new job as editor of LabourList last week. Since then, we’ve seen the resignation of the deputy prime minister, the frenzy of a reshuffle, the jostling of the opening stages of the contest to become deputy leader of the Labour party, and now the Mandelson scandal. Given this period started with the government announcing a new “delivery” phase, things can hardly be said to have gone to plan.
Backbenchers I speak to vary between expressing shock at quite how bad the start of this term has been and anger at how some elements have been handled. Several have expressed genuine bafflement as to why Starmer chose to stand by Mandelson as long as he did (they were considerably more sympathetic to his standing by Rayner). They could (rightly) see no way this could end without Mandelson going. Given that, standing by him felt like it was all risk and no reward.
This has been a pretty horrific start to the new term for the government. It will need to have both judgment and nimbleness to turn it around and change the narrative. Starmer is going to have to start to show his party and the country that he has both these characteristics as well as a good story to tell. And he will need to do it soon. That will mean demonstrating better judgment about which risks are truly worth taking.
-
Emma Burnell is the editor of LabourList
