Opinion: Starmer on the Brink: should the PM resign?

Disclaimer: CARE is politically neutral. The views here are the views of the author and not those of the organisation.

There are growing voices calling for the PM to resign. So I want to tackle this question directly. Have we now crossed a tipping point? Should Keir Starmer resign?

What follows are my own, personal views. I recognise you might not agree and that is okay! But whether you agree, or disagree, I hope what follows is a reflection that brings both truth and grace together.

We already knew that Starmer’s judgement went badly awry when he appointed to the post of ambassador to the US a man who had a known history of friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted paedophile.

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice in the US released a huge tranche of files related to Epstein. One of the things they revealed was the full extent of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein.

As a result, Starmer came under huge pressure. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour Leader, even called for the PM to go.

Starmer’s defence was that he did not know the full extent of Mandelson’s prior relationship with Epstein. No-one, Starmer said, could have known the true ‘depth and darkness’ of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Starmer also claimed that Mandelson personally lied to him about the true nature of his previous friendship .

At a news conference on 5 February 2026, Starmer said :

“There was … security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post.”

We now know this was not true.

Late yesterday, the Guardian broke the story that Mandelson had actually failed security vetting. This means that UK Vetting Services recommended to officials in the Foreign Office that Mandelson should not be appointed. They said granting him access to sensitive information – which you would need access to if you are ambassador to the US – was too great a security risk.

Yet despite this clear warning, Foreign Office Officials, led by Sir Olly Robbins, cleared him for the role anyway.

This is where things get quite murky. It does appear as if the Prime Minister and other Senior Cabinet Ministers might not be fully aware of how the vetting system operates. So the government line has been that there has been a serious failure of state and that the PM and senior cabinet ministers should have been told.

According to the Independent's Political Editor, David Maddox, No 10 did know that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. He published on X a screenshot of a whatsapp message he sent to the then director of communications in No 10 asking if he could confirm or deny the story.

Then, as the day has developed, some sources close to Olly Robbins, who left his job as the Senior civil servant in the Foreign Office as a result of what has happened, have pushed back.

According to ex National Cyber Security Centre boss Ciaran Martin, it was Olly Robbins' decision to make and that Mr Robbins was prohibited from sharing any details of what goes into his vetting assessment. On one level this makes sense because if elements of vetting were made public, the process would not really work. This afternoon he told the World at One:

"If an appointment has already been announced, as in this case, You’re presented with an analysis of the risks and a handling plan. The job of the (permanent sec) is to say this risk is manageable and therefore we should go ahead, or not. The one thing you never do is tell ministers of any kind because otherwise the system would collapse… nobody would undertake vetting.” When asked if Robbins has been a political scapegoat, he says: “I simply cannot understand the basis of this decision… There is no abuse of process, there is no failure of process. Not only is there no duty to disclose the details of a vetting case, there is a duty not to disclose them."

So the government is blaming the civil service. And elements of the service are pushing back.

As one commentator put it: what a mess!

At the time of writing, the Prime Minister is refusing to resign. Olly Robbins has effectively been fired and, meanwhile, opposition MPs are saying that if the PM did mislead the House of Commons, then he should go. The Liberal Democrat Leader, Ed Davy, has said Starmer should face a Commons Inquiry over whether he has lied to the House.

So we come to the question: should Starmer resign? Is it now time for him to go?

I have to be honest and say I am not a big fan of Sir Keir. I find his inability to communicate effectively especially frustrating. The stories of him reading briefing paper after briefing paper and then failing to make a decision do not inspire confidence.

In weighing up the answer, I also want to be sensitive to my own political views. I voted Labour at the last election because my candidate is a professing Christian and had voted well on some key issues. But prior to that I worked for the Scottish Conservative Party and had mostly voted Tory in national elections. This obviously informs my response. Plus, I am alert to the growing tendency in British politics to call for resignations over every perceived misdemeanour. Our public life is characterized by a total lack of grace and forgiveness. We gleefully throw leaders and politicians under the bus and seem to delight in doing so. As a follower of Jesus, I know no leader is perfect. I know my posture towards them must be respectful obedience (unless they command me to do something ungodly).

When the Mandelson business first hit the headlines earlier this year, my personal view was that while Starmer had made a serious error, I did not think he should resign. After all, To err is to be human as the saying goes. Starmer made a serious mistake, but on balance I thought it best he continued. But these new revelations have given me pause for thought. Let’s consider the following aspects of what has been revealed.

Firstly, we must not forget that Starmer appointed Mandelson to the most senior ambassador position, despite knowing that he had links to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. As I said already, this is a serious error of judgement.

Secondly, the crux of this whole business is who knew what, and when. Starmer is insisting that he was kept in the dark; first by Mandelson who repeatedly lied to him and now by officials who neglected to tell him about the failure to pass security vetting. Even if you allow that Starmer genuinely did not know about the vetting failure, and the extent of Mandelson’s prior relationship with Epstein, why did he not ask more questions? There was plenty of information that was in the public domain about Mandelson that suggested he was not an appropriate choice.

Thirdly, there is the growing whiff of hypocrisy around Starmer. When leader of the opposition, he intentionally positioned himself as cleaner than the clean. He was quick to call for Boris Johnson to go over party-gate and said if the police charged him with breaking covid rules he would resign. He also started his premiership promising to clean up politics. But this business with Mandelson is denting his projected image as a man who lives by the rules and who upholds standards.

How can we be in a situation as a country where a man with known links to a convicted paedophile AND who fails vetting is still appointed to the most prominent and important ambassadorship in the world? How is that possible?

The government’s line is that this is all a failure of state. But as Times journalist Steve Swinford said, this is also a failure of individuals. Officials, Ministers and advisers have all failed. As a result, a man blatantly not qualified from a character point of view to be anywhere near a position of power, with access to state documents, was appointed as ambassador to our closely ally.

The Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, pointed the following out on X this morning: "Keir Starmer has now sacked everyone involved in Mandelson’s appointment - Chris Wormald, Morgan McSweeney, Olly Robbins." She went on to add: "But Starmer was ultimately the one who approved it. He’s got no one left to sack. It’s time for him to take responsibility. He should go."

I basically agree and I think there comes a point where you have to say that it is time for one of our political leaders to front this up, acknowledge the failure, take responsibility and resign. Yet such leadership is conspicuous by its absence. By way of a relatively recent contrast, Amber Rudd resigned in 2018 after misleading the House of Commons, even though it emerged very clearly that she was misled by her home office officials over targets for removing people who had arrived in the UK illegally.

In scripture, leadership matters. In fact, God has so arranged things that humans are supposed to be involved in leadership. All men and women share in the role of stewarding the earth. Some are raised up to particular leadership positions in the community, in workplaces, in churches, and in politics as well.

Central to the biblical vision of good, godly leadership is the notion that character matters more than charisma. Just look, for example, at the requirements for Elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Only one aspect is about gifting – namely that the Elder must be ‘apt to teach’. The rest of the characteristics are all focused on character.

We see a similar thing in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, where we read about God’s will for the King. The stress again is more on character than individual gifting. The King must be humble, so that he does not raise himself above his fellow countrymen.

Proverbs 28:13 says this: "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy." Godly leadership always involves being honest about your own errors, rather than finding scapegoats and others to blame.

Ultimately, the buck must stop with Starmer. His failure to ask questions, to interrogate information, and to show better judgement in the first place, coupled with the sense of hypocrisy and the willingness to blame others, suggests a pride that is very troubling.

So, should Keir Starmer resign?

For me, personally, I lean more now towards him needing to resign. But the situation is currently so confusing, that until there is greater clarity, I am prepared to suspend judgement.

But whatever view you come to, what we must do over the coming days is earnestly pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Let’s pray for leaders of honesty, integrity, courage and wisdom. In other words, let’s pray for leaders of God’s grace, rather than one’s our nation likely deserves.