Sir Keir Starmer is under increasing scrutiny following his decision to award a peerage to Lord Matthew Doyle, his former communications chief, amid revelations of Doyle’s connections to a convicted sex offender. At Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer defended his actions while acknowledging that Doyle had not provided a “full account” of his past associations, particularly with Sean Morton, a former Labour councillor who admitted to serious sexual offences against children.
Controversy Surrounding Lord Doyle
The controversy erupted after The Sunday Times reported on 27 December that Doyle had actively campaigned for Morton during the latter’s legal troubles in December 2016. Morton had been charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children, leading to public outrage and questions regarding Starmer’s judgement in granting Doyle a peerage announced on 10 December.
In a recent statement, Lord Doyle expressed regret for his past support of Morton, claiming that at the time, Morton maintained his innocence. “To have not ceased support ahead of a judicial conclusion was a clear error of judgement for which I apologise unreservedly,” he stated, attempting to distance himself from the scandal. However, critics remain unconvinced.
Opposition Accusations
During the intense exchanges in the Commons, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of hypocrisy, suggesting that he was “stuffing government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists.” Badenoch pointedly questioned how Starmer could justify appointing Doyle after being aware of the allegations against him. Starmer responded by confirming that he removed the Labour whip from Doyle, stressing that he had accepted responsibility for the oversight.
The Prime Minister faced additional pressure as Badenoch highlighted another troubling appointment—Lord Mandelson as US ambassador—despite Mandelson’s ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer admitted to being misled about the extent of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, which has further compounded the criticism directed at his leadership.
Calls for Accountability
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey joined the fray, labelling Starmer’s decisions as indicative of a “catastrophic lack of judgement.” Davey urged Starmer to take accountability for the consequences of his choices and the impact on public trust. As the row escalates, Starmer’s assertions about accountability and change within the Labour Party are being met with scepticism.
Starmer defended his government’s record on violence against women and girls, yet Badenoch retorted that he could not absolve himself of responsibility for the Doyle appointment, which was front-page news. The back-and-forth highlights the mounting pressure on Starmer as opposition parties seek to capitalise on perceived weaknesses within Labour’s leadership.
Why it Matters
The unfolding controversy surrounding Lord Doyle serves as a litmus test for Starmer’s leadership and the Labour Party’s commitment to ethical governance. As public trust wanes, the implications of these appointments could resonate far beyond Westminster, influencing voter sentiment in upcoming elections. With calls for accountability growing louder, Starmer’s ability to navigate this crisis will be crucial in shaping the future of his party and its standing with the electorate.
