What did Starmer know when he gave Peter Mandelson a top job?
Keir Starmer has come under fire due to his appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US in 2025, when his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was already well known. Was more known behind closed doors?
Listen to this article
Read time: 4 mins
In brief…
- Kemi Badenoch has called on Keir Starmer to make public all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US in 2025, after details of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein were revealed.
- The News Agents say the PM was “minimising the friendship” between the two with the appointment, suggesting the protection of women and girls was not a concern when giving Mandelson the job.
- They say it is highly unlikely there was any knowledge inside Labour to the extent of the sensitive information Mandelson was passing on to his paedophile friend.
What’s the story?
Keir Starmer is potentially on the brink of a "significant political crisis".
The recent release of more than 3 million documents from the Epstein Files exposed the depth of relationship between former Labour Lord Peter Mandelson and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
It is now known that Mandelson was passing sensitive information to the convicted paedophile and sex trafficker during his time in Gordon Brown's Labour government.
That detail is new, but it's been widely known for many years about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, leaving Starmer now struggling with the question of why he was appointed to the role of UK ambassador to the US in 2025.
"No one knew where this was going in terms of the scale or breadth of Mandelson's lies and his proximity to Epstein, but Starmer has just admitted that he was aware of his ongoing relationship with Epstein," says Emily Maitlis, following Prime Ministers questions on 4 February, during which he was grilled on his knowledge, and Mandelson's appointment, by Kemi Badenoch.
The Tory leader called on Starmer to make all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment public.
"Mandelson didn't care that Epstein was a convicted paedophile. He stayed in his flat in 2009 when he was business secretary," Emily adds.
"I think it also applies now to Keir Starmer – the minimising of that friendship.
What did Keir Starmer know?
Mandelson and Epstein's relationship has been exposed in full, and Badenoch's call for Labour to expose details of his appointment to a key role in Starmer's government would potentially shed light on what, of this, was known behind closed doors in 10 Downing Street.
"If you knew that the man you were about to appoint had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile, why wasn't that ringing alarm bells?" Emily asks.
"If it wasn't, the only reason is because you weren't taking those crimes seriously enough.”
Before responding to Badenoch’s PMQs demand, Starmer paid tribute to the victims of Epstein.
“Epstein was seen as 'a bit of a pedophile' or it was 'a bit of a friendship' or his crimes were something that happened in the past.
“None of those are good enough excuses now, and I think it does, at this point, land at Starmer's door to explain why any of that was seen as okay this time last year."
What Starmer didn't know
After quitting the Labour Party, and stepping down from his peerage in the House of Lords, Peter Mandelson has said he will cooperate with the Metropolitan Police on an investigation into his actions.
He denies all criminal activity – and Lewis Goodall says it is extremely unlikely anyone inside 10 Downing Street was aware of the details Mandelson was passing to Epstein.
"The Prime Minister, and those around him, could not have known of the extraordinary stream of consciousness, the chronicling of government secrets that were being passed to Jeffrey Epstein by Peter Mandelson," Lewis says.
"We only know that as a result of the Department of Justice inquiry, there is no record of it within the Cabinet Office.
"I have no doubt that Starmer is genuinely gobsmacked by that."
The Epstein Files also reveal Mandelson and Epstein referred to his release from prison on child sex charges as "liberation day".
"They also certainly couldn't have known just how lurid the relationship appears to have been between Epstein and Mandelson," Lewis adds.
What’s Starmer’s next move?
Starmer has said that making public every communication involved in appointing Mandelson to the US ambassador role could jeopardise national security, but Emily says he finds himself in a "problem of his own making".
"The appetite is such that people will not be satisfied if they don't get to the bottom of that relationship between Morgan McSweeney, Mandelson and Starmer," she says.
"People want to see the emails exchanged between the three of them that allowed this appointment to happen."
Lewis says that if Mandelson was so "indiscreet" with Epstein, there is a chance his communications with people inside of Labour could be equally damaging.
"The potential there for something that would show the government in a very poor light is quite high," he says.
"If that's the case, I think this has the potential to be politically highly flammable for the prime minister and a real systemic risk to his government."
“This has the potential to become a very significant political crisis for Keir Starmer, not least because this is a government which has – as part of it one of its five missions – its strategy to halve violence against women and girls.”