KEIR STARMER still hopes to brazen it out — repeating claims nobody believes, relying on Labour MPs’ fear of turmoil in a world at war to postpone his exit.

They would be better advised to act now. Even the selfish logic of waiting to let Starmer own the party’s predicted humiliation at local and devolved elections no longer applies: there isn’t time any more to run a leadership contest before the elections, so forcing Starmer to call one would still leave him carrying the can.

Starmer has always presented as a diligent manager — a stickler for rules and procedure, more concerned with following the correct process than with the outcome being right or wrong.

This public image had some advantages as people grew sick of the sleaze and chaos at Downing Street under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss; it has lost its shine since, as the ethical vacuum behind it became clear through the Gaza genocide.

It is his default position now, but MPs should not get lost in discussion of due diligence and “developed vetting.”

If Starmer was not told by the Foreign Office that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process for approval as US ambassador, it was because he didn’t wish to be.

We know that the Independent raised the vetting failure with No 10 at the time. It is not credible that Starmer was not informed and if he didn’t then look into it it was only because he wanted to remain officially ignorant of something he already knew.

Similarly, Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein, indeed that it continued after Epstein’s conviction for child sex offences, was public knowledge when he was appointed US ambassador.

The whole drama about whether Starmer knew he had failed a vetting process fetishises bureaucratic procedure over the actual scandal that motivates public anger — the Prime Minister’s indifference to Mandelson’s friendship with a convicted paedophile.

And if it hardly matters whether Starmer is technically lying or dissembling, they should recognise that the former is a strong possibility.

Starmer’s “stick to the rules” image has always been as much projection as reality.

He was not honest with Labour members when he stood for the leadership, pretending to support socialist policies to win votes then jettisoning the entire Corbyn-era agenda once elected.

For him rules are a weapon to control others. They do not apply to his own faction: he was not bothered by Labour Together flouting the rules on declaring the donations it received, and as Labour leader he relied on arbitrary constituency party suspensions, member exclusions and rigged candidate selections to impose total conformity.

MPs who feel Starmer has partly redeemed himself by distancing himself from Donald Trump’s war on Iran, contrasting this to the initially gung-ho warmongering of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, should remember this basic dishonesty.

Because Starmer’s claim to be keeping Britain out of the war is again more technicality than truth. Unlike Spain, France, Austria or Italy, we have not stopped US bombers crossing our airspace to rain death and destruction on Iran — worse, we continue to allow them to take off from our bases to do so.

Trump is, again, openly threatening war crimes on a horrendous scale should talks in Islamabad not go his way, and Britain’s claim that our bases will only be platforms for “defensive” missions are as meaningless as ever. Starmer has not kept Britain out of the Iran war and should not be credited with doing so.

Starmer has been a disaster from day one for the whole labour movement, turning his party into a crumbling prop for a status quo now intolerable to the overwhelming majority.

That is now driving Labour into a ditch and empowering the far right. His complete lack of principle and judgement is on display for all to see. MPs should face maximum pressure to get rid of him without delay.