Starmer admits No 10 asked about job for aide Matthew Doyle

Sir Keir Starmer has acknowledged that Downing Street held discussions about a potential diplomatic role for his former senior aide, Matthew Doyle. Doyle, who served as Starmer’s communications chief before being made a Labour peer in January 2025, was suspended from the parliamentary party earlier this year following revelations of his association with a convicted sex offender. Despite the conversations, Starmer stated that no formal appointment materialized. The issue arose amid wider scrutiny of diplomatic appointments linked to the Labour leadership. The controversy intensified after reports surfaced that Doyle had campaigned for Sean Morton, a former Labour councillor convicted of indecent child image offenses, prior to Morton’s conviction. Doyle has apologized for his past support, explaining it occurred while Morton was maintaining his innocence. The matter was raised during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), where Conservative MPs questioned Starmer on whether Downing Street had sought to secure a Foreign Office position for Doyle. Starmer defended Doyle’s public service record but insisted that no official offer was made. This episode unfolded alongside a separate diplomatic scandal involving Sir Olly Robbins, the former senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, who was dismissed after security concerns emerged about Lord Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US. Mandelson was later removed from the post due to his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch seized on these developments to accuse Starmer of cronyism and demanded his resignation, arguing that the prime minister failed to follow proper procedures in these appointments. Labour MPs vocally rejected Badenoch’s accusations during PMQs, but the incidents have raised questions about the vetting processes and ethical standards within the current government. The controversy surrounding Doyle and the diplomatic appointments underscores ongoing tensions over transparency and accountability in political staffing decisions.