‘Always somebody else’s fault!’ Martin Daubney slaps down Labour MP’s defence of Keir Starmer as Peter Mandelson row engulfs Labour

As Martin argued that Sir Keir "needs to go", Mr Pinto-Duschinsky was quick to disagree, dismissing Martin's remark.

He hit back: "This is just ridiculous. Keir Starmer is angry and he's right to be angry. He is a good man who I trust, who has been fundamentally let down.

"Keir is right to be angry, but this is not a failure of him at all, this is a state failure and a bureaucratic failure that has let down a good man. We're right to be angry, and we're absolutely committed to transparency. But the idea that this is an attack on Keir is simply for the birds."

The Labour MP defended Sir Keir further, launching criticism at Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage: "When I talk to my colleagues around the Labour Party, what they all tell me is that especially at this time, we have seen over the last month Keir show extraordinary leadership.

"We have kept out of a war that Nigel Farage that Kemi Badenoch would have dragged us into."

Interjecting Mr Pinto-Duschinsky, Martin urged him to stick to "defending his own boss" and not swiping at other leaders.

Martin made clear: "David, I really don't think today's the day where you're really allowed, to be frank, to be attacking Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch. Let's stick to the point. You need to defend your own boss here. This just doesn't pass the sniff test, mate."

Mr Pinto-Duschinsky argued: "With the deepest respect, I think that is a very misleading way to approach it. Vetting is a separate process, and Olly Robbins actually wrote to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

"In his letter, he said the process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any of the findings other than the final outcome."

Martin then interjected, stating: "Exactly, the final outcome! You've been hung by your own petard, David. He failed the vetting process and so they should have been told.

"It's inconceivable that an appointment of this magnitude simply wasn't put under the Prime Minister's nose. It sounds like a fantasy."

The Labour MP furiously accused Martin of "intentionally conflating" the situation.

He responded: "The point is it is the department's decision, and it is an outrageous situation that we aren't told these things, but it is for the department and the department alone. They are not actually allowed in the current process to tell ministers of any issue.

"They simply say whether someone has passed in their opinion or failed, it is that simple. And so the Prime Minister is right to be angry, he has been let down. He is going to come to Parliament on on Monday to show complete transparency.

"But this is fundamentally not a failure of the Prime Minister, this is a failure of state processes that have been in place for many, many years."

Martin then argued that when it comes to Labour scandals it is "always somebody else's fault" and not the Prime Minister's.

He told Mr : "It was Morgan McSweeney's fault, nobody knew about Louise Haigh when she had a fraud claim, nobody knew that Rachel Reeves had massaged her CV. Nobody knows anything until it all comes out in the wash. Your prime minister spends more time in the door than Count Dracula."

Mr Pinto-Duschinsky hit back: "No, that's not true at all, he's someone who is showing real leadership. And the contrast between him and the transparency he's shown and the leadership he's shown to previous prime ministers, there is a real difference.

"But look Keir Starmer has said all along that he is sorry he appointed Peter Mandelson. We are committed to transparency and that's what you will continue to see from this Government."