Diane Abbott says she 'doesn't buy' Starmer explanation over Mandelson as PM faces new crisis over ex-ambassador
The Mother of the House said she did not believe that Sir Keir was unaware that the Foreign Office had issued Mandelson clearance despite failing Developed Vetting
Former Labour frontbencher Diane Abbott has told LBC that she does not believe that Sir Keir Starmer was unaware that Peter Mandelson had failed Developed Vetting ahead of his appointment as UK Ambassador to the US.
Listen to this article
Speaking to LBC's Tonight with Andrew Marr, the Mother of the House, said she did not believe Sir Keir's protestation that he wasn't told about Mandelson's vetting failure as "just not credible".
Ms Abbott, who is suspended from Labour and sitting as an independent, said: "I never bought the story that Keir Starmer wasn't told in the first place."
Elaborating on her own experience, she said: "When I came down from Cambridge, my first job was as a career civil servant, and you get the most elaborate vetting in the Civil Service, even if you're new, like myself.
"So the idea that he's now still saying he didn't know. This is a man who was Director of Public Prosecutions. The fact that he wasn't across these matters is just not credible."
The revelation that Mandelson failed vetting has led to renewed calls for Sir Keir to quit as Prime Minister.
Ms Abbott told Andrew: "I think he needs to consider his position. You cannot mislead the House in this way. You just can't. Everybody knows that. So I think he has to consider his position
"He made a lot of his reputation by finally enabling Boris Johnson to go. And the accusation then was that Boris Johnson had misled the House and that we were going to get a completely different atmosphere now, a completely fresh page would be turned. It doesn't feel that way today..."
Ms Abbott's calls for Starmer to resign should he have deliberately led the House was echoed by Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South, Graham Stringer.
Mr Stringer told Andrew: "It depends if the Prime Minister was aware of that information. If that is the case, then there is no ambiguity about it. He has to go.
"Whether you're a junior minister or the most important minister, the Prime Minister, if you lie to Parliament knowingly, then you have to go. And that's been the case for some time.
He added: "There is another question. If he wasn't properly informed about what judgement you can then make about the leadership and the administration of this Government.
"I think it's been a fair criticism that there is too much delegation from the Prime Minister and that may have allowed this to happen. And we're coming to the point where the difference between delegation and abdication of leadership responsibility, it's very difficult to define where begins and the other ends."