Keir Starmer is facing mounting criticism after admitting he defended Lord Mandelson in the Commons despite knowing that the Foreign Office was investigating emails between the Labour peer and Jeffrey Epstein.
Downing Street confirmed the Prime Minister was told on Tuesday that an inquiry was under way, yet he still vouched for Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions the following day.
The correspondence, later published by Bloomberg, revealed Mandelson had urged Epstein to seek early release from prison. The revelations forced his dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington on Thursday.
Starmer insisted he had only known an investigation was happening and had not sought further details. “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him,” he said.
He added: “What emerged last week were Bloomberg emails which showed that the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Epstein was far different to what I had understood… On top of that, what the email showed was he was not only questioning but wanting to challenge the conviction of Epstein at the time. That, for me, went and cut across the whole approach that I’ve taken on violence against women and girls.”
Starmer claimed he only became aware of the full contents on Wednesday evening, hours after telling MPs Mandelson was “playing an important part in the UK-US relationship.”
Poor Judgment and Internal Anger
Labour MPs reacted with open scepticism to Starmer’s explanation. One said: “The buck stops at the top. If the Prime Minister knew about the emails but wasn’t briefed, he should have asked questions in detail. It would be better now to stop searching for a scapegoat, admit he got it wrong and seek to move on.”
Another described the row as “death by a thousand cuts,” adding: “At the moment, it is only Keir Starmer’s force of personality that is keeping this government together.”
The handling of the affair has drawn renewed focus on Starmer’s judgment and on Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who pushed for Mandelson’s appointment and was reportedly the last adviser defending him before his removal.
Weekend reports suggested that after PMQs, Starmer lashed out at McSweeney, telling him: “You are supposed to protect me from things like this.” McSweeney is said to have replied: “That’s exactly what I was trying to do.” No 10 has denied the exchange, but the claim underlines tensions at the heart of government.
Scrutiny of Vetting Failures
The fallout has been compounded by questions over Labour’s vetting processes. Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, has announced an inquiry, saying the dismissal raised “serious questions about the integrity of our vetting and security processes.”
She asked: “Were the proper processes followed, and if yes, why was a high-risk appointment allowed to go ahead?”
The scandal has left Britain without an ambassador in Washington on the eve of President Trump’s state visit, a major diplomatic embarrassment for Starmer’s government.
Timeline of Missteps
- Monday: Bloomberg contacted Mandelson about the cache of emails. A US congressional committee released Epstein’s “birthday book,” containing a note from Mandelson calling him his “best pal.”
- Tuesday: The Foreign Office became aware of the emails and alerted No 10. Starmer was told of the investigation but not the details.
- Wednesday: Starmer defended Mandelson at PMQs. Later, officials obtained Mandelson’s response and Bloomberg published the emails. Only then did Starmer conclude he should be dismissed.
- Thursday: Mandelson was formally removed after Starmer met Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.
Unanswered Questions
The sequence of events leaves open critical questions: why the Prime Minister failed to press for details before publicly defending Mandelson; whether McSweeney withheld information; and why officials delayed passing on the full picture.
Labour MPs privately acknowledge the row has exposed weaknesses at the top of government. For now, Starmer is attempting to draw a line under the scandal, but disquiet within his party is growing.
