UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer encountered a major backlash from within the Labour Party after ordering MPs to block an inquiry into his handling of Peter Mandelson’s controversial appointment as US ambassador.

Rebellion Against the Whip

Despite a three-line whip – a strict instruction to vote with the party – dozens of Labour MPs defied the order on Tuesday night. These MPs accused Starmer of hypocrisy and attempting to conceal the truth surrounding the appointment. The event highlighted deep divisions within the Labour Party and raised questions about Starmer’s leadership.

Accusations of a Cover-Up

One MP reportedly warned that Labour was becoming known as the ‘paedo protectors party,’ referencing Mandelson’s past associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer himself avoided the debate, instead sending his chief secretary, Darren Jones, to address dissenting MPs.

Opposition Criticism

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch questioned Starmer’s motives, stating, “What’s he so scared of? He knows that he has misled Parliament, so what he is doing is trying to cover up.” Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading Parliament to protect his political position.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey echoed these sentiments, describing Starmer’s behavior as “cowardly.” Critics also pointed to the hypocrisy of blocking an investigation by the Commons privileges committee, a process Starmer previously utilized to remove Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal.

Dissent from Within

Labour backbencher Emma Lewell criticized Starmer’s approach, arguing it reinforced the perception of a cover-up and alienated the public. She stated, “It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide, and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover up.”

Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood warned voters would not forgive attempts to conceal the truth behind Mandelson’s appointment, stating, “This isn’t about party politics—it’s about doing the right thing. Believe me, there’s a stink here—and the public can smell it.”

Testimony and Admissions

The debate was further complicated by testimony from Philip Barton, the former head of the Foreign Office, who revealed that Downing Street had pressured officials to expedite Mandelson’s security clearance. Barton also stated the appointment was announced before proper vetting was completed, contradicting Starmer’s previous assurances.

Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, attempted to shield his ex-boss by taking responsibility for the flawed appointment. McSweeney admitted Starmer relied on his advice, which he now acknowledges was incorrect, and conceded Downing Street was aware of Mandelson’s ties to Epstein but proceeded regardless.

The Final Vote

Despite efforts by Downing Street – including threats of expulsion and lobbying – to prevent a rebellion, the motion to launch an inquiry was defeated by 335 votes to 223. However, 15 Labour MPs defied the whip, and 53 abstained, indicating significant dissent within the party. Badenoch emphasized the importance of upholding parliamentary rules, stating ministers who mislead Parliament must correct the record.