Sir Keir Starmer's premiership is on the brink after it emerged that the Foreign Office overruled a security vetting process to clear Lord Peter Mandelson to become UK ambassador to the US. The Prime Minister has faced calls to stand down over the matter, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calling it "preposterous" to claim he did not know Lord Mandelson failed security vetting.

She said: "If the Prime Minister doesn't know what's happening in his own office, he shouldn't be in charge of our country. He should go." It remains unclear what Starmer knew about the vetting process and when, with his leadership in severe jeopardy if he is found to have misled parliament. So what do you think? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comments section.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said Sir Keir should have told Parliament "at the earliest opportunity" when he learned what had happened earlier this week, rather than having "waited for the media to force the truth out".

He added: "If Keir Starmer has misled parliament and lied to the British people, he has to go."

The Prime Minister was not aware that the former Labour grandee was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week, the Government has said.

He has instructed officials to establish the facts about why vetting was granted, and the Foreign Office earlier said it is "working urgently" to comply.

Downing Street sources say the Prime Minister is "absolutely furious".

Reports on Thursday suggested he may make a statement in the Commons on Monday over the matter but No 10 did not confirm if he would face MPs.

Lord Mandelson, a political appointment rather than a career diplomat, was sacked from his Washington role last September when more details emerged about his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019.

Questions over Starmer's judgment intensified after the first batch of documents related to the decision published last month showed that he was warned before announcing Lord Mandelson's ambassadorship of a "general reputational risk" over his association with Epstein.

That warning stemmed from the first part of the checks, carried out by the Cabinet Office, which was based on information in the public domain at the time.

The second was the highly confidential background vetting by security officials, which followed the announcement but came before Lord Mandelson took up his role in February 2025.

Information unearthed in this process - including any concerns - is never shared with ministers, and the result is binary, either clearing the candidate or barring them.

More documents relating to his appointment are yet to be released at the behest of MPs.