At the time of going to pixel, the bookies think it’s more likely than not that Starmer will be booted from Number 10 this year. Odds have shortened to 1/3 at one high street book, with most of the ring between 2/5 and 1/2. An implied 67–75% chance he’s out by Christmas at the very latest…
Always follow the money. Although if you happen to be a sitting Member of Parliament, think twice about putting a few quid down. Betting on politics has caused trouble before…
Starmer on the record, in full view of the media, on 5th February:
“There was then… security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise … that gave [Mandelson] clearance for the role.”
A day earlier, Badenoch asked him in the Commons if “the security vetting he received mention[ed] Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein“. Starmer said it did. So he saw the DV vetting prior to Mandelson’s appointment, referred to specific parts within it at the despatch box in February, yet only found out Mandelson had failed that vetting on Tuesday. Nonsense…
The key lines from Darren Jones’s spin operation on the morning round:
Starmer’s defence yet again is that he simply did not know what was happening at the top levels of the government he is supposed to lead. No one in Labour has come up with a good reason why Starmer stayed quiet about this until the Guardian blew the whistle last night. He supposedly found out on Tuesday…
The Guardian reports that UK Security Vetting services actually denied Peter Mandelson clearance for Developed Vetting after the usual process. That decision was overruled. A nuclear bomb has just detonated inside Starmer’s main excuse for appointing and defending Mandelson…
This rejection came after a due diligence process by the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics team and after Mandelson’s appointment was made public in December. Mandelson failed his security clearance process on 28 January last year. Within two days that was reversed by the FCDO led by David Lammy and permanent secretary Olly Robbins…
Developed Vetting denial is ultra-rare because it is a pretty standard clearance level for those dealing with classified information. As a reminder here are some of the times Starmer blamed the vetting process for the Mandelson appointment:
Starmer directly referenced the security vetting on 5 February this year: “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.” Uh oh…
Officials are also reportedly considering whether to block this information from the Mandelson Files as mandated by the Humble Address – which would be a breach of its terms. Just as Starmer thought this was behind him…
Polling from More in Common released overnight:
Do you think that the following is true or false? Morgan McSweeney faked the theft of his phone in order to hide the messages between him and Peter Mandelson.
Definitely true
Probably true
Probably false
Definitely false
| 2024 vote | Def. true | Prob. true | Total true | Prob. false | Def. false |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 15% | 59% | 74% | 22% | 4% |
| Conservative | 22% | 58% | 80% | 17% | 3% |
| Labour | 15% | 55% | 70% | 24% | 5% |
| Lib Dem | 18% | 56% | 74% | 25% | 2% |
| Reform UK | 27% | 56% | 83% | 12% | 4% |
| Green Party | 15% | 67% | 82% | 15% | 3% |
Source: More in Common, March 2026
They’re not buying it…
Asked again and again, with no answer. Look at the glum faces on the frontbench…
Douglas Alexander – a friend of Starmer’s – was asked on Sky News if the PM will be in post at the next election. He wasn’t so sure himself:
“I think he will. There are no certainties but of course I think he will lead and I think he should because, frankly, on the biggest call in this parliament he’s exercised the right judgment, which is to keep us out of someone else’s war.”