Chris Mason: Latest vetting row raises fresh concerns over Starmer's judgement

We are currently witnessing the curious spectacle of two men, both of whom have served as the prime minister's director of communications within the last year, on opposite sides of a public row over the controversial appointment of one of them to the House of Lords.

Tim Allan, who was in charge of Sir Keir Starmer's communications until he resigned on Monday, has issued a statement, first published by The Times, in which he says he spoke to Lord Matthew Doyle about his connections to a sex offender before the now peer was offered seat in the Upper House.

It is a reminder of the staff turnover there has been in Downing Street in Sir Keir's first 18 months or so in office – and indeed just this week, as Allan refers to the also now departed former Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney.

And it substantiates the argument Sir Keir himself made in the House of Commons.

"I was asked to speak to Matthew Doyle by Morgan McSweeney regarding Doyle's relationship with Sean Morton. I accurately relayed what Doyle had told me to the PM. The PM is right to state that Doyle did not tell me about his campaigning in a council election for Morton. Doyle did however tell me that he had believed Morton's protestations of innocence prior to his conviction and had been supportive of him during that time."

I have offered Lord Doyle a right of reply at each stage of this story over the last day or so and he has so far declined to comment. In an earlier statement he said he apologised for an "error of judgement" in choosing to campaign for a man who had been charged over images of child sexual abuse.

And all this after the prime minister was told to his face by one of his own MPs, Emma Lewell, that the last few weeks had led to people "screaming at me in the street that I am a member of the paedo protectors party".

The remarks, at a private meeting of Labour MPs and peers with the prime minister, hadn't been intended to be heard beyond the room in which they were made. But they are an insight into the fear that the noisy revelations of the last few weeks are cutting through to the wider electorate, are being noticed.

This latest row has prompted fresh concerns within Labour about the prime minister's judgement, as there are striking parallels with the last one about Lord Mandelson.

A prominent Labour figure is offered a job in the prime minister's gift, only for revelations to emerge that lead some to question the wisdom of the appointment. The prime minister then publicly criticises the person he gave the job to and criticises the vetting process for their appointment.

Am I talking here about Lord Mandelson or Lord Doyle? As different as the two cases are in their specifics, I could be talking about either when it comes to how their jobs came about.

There are now calls within the Labour Party for Lord Doyle to be stripped of his peerage, under the new law originally planned to remove Lord Mandelson's seat in the Lords.

As for the prime minister, he must be mighty glad the half-term break is now imminent and Parliament will be in recess for a week.

He could no doubt usea firebreak from the recent political heat.