Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South, said there was a ‘very dangerous atmosphere’ in the parliamentary Labour party.
Sir Keir Starmer does not seem “up to the job”, a Labour backbencher has said amid mounting pressure after Lord Mandelson’s sacking over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
The Prime Minister withdrew his ambassador to the US after emails emerged in which the peer offered support to Epstein even as he faced jail for sexual offences.
Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South, said his fellow Labour MPs were feeling “concerned, slightly downtrodden, a little bit browbeaten” and that there was a “very dangerous atmosphere” in the parliamentary Labour party.
He told the BBC’s The Week In Westminster programme: “You see a Labour Prime Minister who feels that he’s lost control within the first year.
“This isn’t navel-gazing. This is me thinking about my constituents, this country, and the fact that the person who is eight points ahead of us is Nigel Farage. That terrifies me. It terrifies my constituents, and it terrifies a lot of people in this country.
“We don’t have the luxury of carrying on this way with someone who I think increasingly, I’m sorry to say, just doesn’t seem up to the job.”
Sir Keir, who had said he had “full confidence” in Lord Mandelson before the emails were published, is facing questions over what he knew and when about the ex-ambassador’s ties to Epstein.
He is also facing anger from Labour backbenchers, some of whom have taken aim at Sir Keir’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.
One Labour backbencher suggested the Mandelson scandal could be “terminal” for Mr McSweeney, but could also prove a serious problem for the Prime Minister.
They told the PA news agency: “I think Morgan McSweeney runs the show, and Keir just enables it and makes very bad decisions. I’m not sure how long this can continue though.”
Another also suggested that problems in Number 10 went beyond the chief of staff. They said: “Even a Morgan problem is ultimately a Keir problem.”
Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander told BBC Breakfast he understood why Labour MPs were “despondent”, as Lord Mandelson’s dismissal came a week after Angela Rayner was forced to resign from the Cabinet and Labour’s deputy leadership.
He said: “These are not the headlines any of us in Government or in Parliament would have chosen or wanted. But the fact is when the evidence emerged, action had to be taken and we are looking forward, therefore, to moving on.”
Mr Lewis said the Cabinet reshuffle that came after Ms Rayner’s departure was “deeply unpopular” among many backbench MPs and that “the party feels very narrow in terms of the political outlook from the right of the party”.
“I think we’re feeling left out, I think we’re feeling alienated, marginalised and that needs to change because it’s a very, very dangerous atmosphere in the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) at the moment,” he said.
Mr Alexander said “nothing justifies” Lord Mandelson’s appointment “in light of what has now emerged”.
But asked about what information had emerged during Lord Mandelson’s vetting process, Mr Alexander said he was not aware of the details as vetting was “necessarily a secret matter”.
Questions about what the Prime Minister knew of Lord Mandelson’s connection to Epstein come after allies of the peer told The Times that he had admitted in his vetting interview that he continued his relationship with Epstein for many years.
Lord Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was known prior to his appointment, but reports in The Sun and Bloomberg showed their relationship had continued after the financier’s crimes had emerged.
Emails published on Wednesday afternoon included passages in which Lord Mandelson had told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
He is also reported to have told Epstein “I think the world of you” the day before the disgraced financier began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.
Arguing that the emails had provided “materially new information” that exposed “manifest weaknesses” in Lord Mandelson’s judgment, Mr Alexander said: “When that reached the Prime Minister’s desk, he acted and dismissed the ambassador.”
He added that Lord Mandelson’s original appointment had been a “political judgment” that an “unconventional ambassador” was needed to deal with an “unconventional presidential administration” under Donald Trump.
Mr Alexander said: “On one hand, Peter Mandelson did bring some very particular qualities to that job and to that diplomatic post, and on the other hand, as has been confirmed, there were manifest weaknesses of his judgment that have been brutally exposed by these emails.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Sir Keir had continued to back Lord Mandelson without the support of his party.
Speaking as part of a Reform UK press conference in Caerphilly, Mr Farage said: “I just don’t know what the intelligence briefing that Morgan McSweeney, the right-hand man to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister got, but you sort of begin to get the feeling that the PM ignored the warnings, carried on without really having much support in his own party, and then it took him quite a long time to actually remove Lord Mandelson.
“So, it’s kind of left the PM and McSweeney, his right-hand man, in a very difficult position with their own parliamentary party.”
The Liberal Democrats called for the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee to scrutinise the next US ambassador.
Calum Miller, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: “The Prime Minister’s appointment of Mandelson was a clear error of judgment, a mistake that we cannot afford to let him repeat.
“To avoid further national embarrassment for our country on the international stage, the Foreign Affairs Committee must now have a role in scrutinising Mandelson’s successor before they are appointed.”
