Listen
Tap play to hear this story.
Rupert Lowe has criticised Sir Keir Starmer and the handling of the Peter Mandelson controversy, while outlining his vision for Britain and the growth of his Restore Britain movement.
Lowe criticises Mandelson appointment
Speaking to Jacob Rees-Mogg, Rupert Lowe said he had long opposed the decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, describing it as “the most extraordinary appointment” that “didn’t make any logical sense”. The row, which began with Mandelson’s removal and security vetting concerns, has since widened into a broader political dispute.
Attack on political establishment
Lowe framed the controversy as part of a longer pattern, arguing that figures from the New Labour era had reshaped how Britain is governed. He told GB News that decisions taken under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had “long-lasting” consequences, pointing to changes such as the Human Rights Act and the creation of the Supreme Court.
- Lowe says Mandelson appointment “made no logical sense”
- Links controversy to wider criticism of New Labour era
- Points to constitutional and legal reforms as lasting changes
- Claims current issues reflect deeper political direction
- Positions Restore Britain as an alternative
Lowe’s view on Starmer’s leadership
On the Prime Minister directly, Lowe was blunt. He said he did not respect Starmer and described him as a “very poor Prime Minister”. Asked whether Starmer should resign, Lowe said he would support that outcome, but added that keeping him in place could expose wider dissatisfaction among voters.
Restore Britain growth and ambitions
Lowe also used the interview to promote his own political movement. He rejected polling that suggested low public recognition, claiming his party had already attracted more than 131,000 supporters since launching in February and built over 400 local branches. He said many of those joining had not been involved in politics for decades.
Government response and ongoing scrutiny
A government spokesman said that neither the Prime Minister nor ministers were aware that Mandelson had been granted Developed Vetting against advice until recently. Once informed, Starmer instructed officials to establish how the decision had been made. Mandelson has denied wrongdoing and said he was not aware of the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes at the time of their association.
What This Means for Britain
This interview reflects how the Mandelson controversy has widened beyond a single appointment into a broader political argument about judgement and direction.
Lowe’s comments highlight a strand of opinion that sees recent events as part of longer-term changes to how Britain is governed, rather than an isolated issue.
The growth claims around Restore Britain suggest attempts to build support outside the traditional party system, particularly among voters who have been less politically active in recent years.
At the same time, the government’s response shows ongoing scrutiny over how vetting decisions were handled and what ministers knew at the time.
With continued debate in Parliament and attention on leadership, the issue remains part of a wider discussion about accountability, political trust and the direction of government.
Share if you believe leadership decisions should face proper scrutiny.
This article is a factual summary of reporting by GB News. Full original story available on their website. All quotes directly attributed.
Discover more from Breaking Brexit News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Join the discussion