Kemi Badenoch learned from her mistakes at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, and devoted all six of her questions to trying to get Peter Mandelson fired as British Ambassador to Washington.
Badenoch devoted all six of her questions to trying to get Peter Mandelson fired as British Ambassador
Last week, she tacked on random observations about Angela Rayner to questions about the economy – though today she did still try to claim credit for the former deputy prime minister’s departure. The annoyance in the Tory party at this missed open goal had been palpable, and so Badenoch got straight to it in her first question.
Pointing out that a Nato country – Poland – had just had to defend itself against Russian drones, she told the Chamber: ‘Now, more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?’
Starmer immediately condemned the actions of Jeffrey Epstein, and said Mandelson had ‘repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with him’. He added that Mandelson was ‘right to do so, I have full confidence in him and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship’.
Instead of drifting off to another topic, Badenoch decided to worry the Mandelson row like a dog with a bone. She pointed out that the victims of Epstein had ‘called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked’, and then asked whether Starmer had been aware ‘of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington’.
Starmer replied that ‘as the House would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment’, and then repeated his earlier point that Mandelson had expressed his deep regret. This repetition highlighted that Starmer had naturally prepared a response on Mandelson for this session and that he was going to stick to it with the same precision as you might expect one of his spokespeople to show: ‘The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret, he right right to do so, he’s now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship.’
Badenoch stuck at it, saying Starmer hadn’t answered her previous question about whether he had known about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.
‘The fact that he didn’t answer indicates that he probably did know,’ she argued, asking about the revelation in the Daily Telegraph today that while business secretary, Mandelson brokered a deal with Epstein, who had already been convicted of child sex offences.
Starmer repeated his carefully-prepared line, to which Badenoch shot back: ‘I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he had confidence in a man who is brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in government’. She asked when the government would publish Mandelson’s full interests. Starmer burbled on about ‘full due process’, and Badenoch accused him of not answering any questions.
At this point, Starmer made a rather odd remark, which was that ‘she’s finally catching up with the questions that she should have asked last week about the deputy prime minister’. He was right in his analysis, but it was a strange thing to say out loud, as it highlighted how unstable things are with Starmer’s top team, and how there are many different fronts where his judgement is being called into question.
Badenoch picked up his reference to the deputy prime minister to refer to the deputy leader contest and the way the candidates were ‘chasing after’ the trade unions. ‘The link, Mr Speaker, isn’t the link between all of this: his bad decisions, his bad judgement, and his total weakness.’
Starmer joked that while the Labour deputy leadership contest would finish on 25 October, the Tory one had been going on for months. Had Badenoch been more accomplished at PMQs, she might have left the Prime Minister on the ropes, but as it was, she managed to land some real blows today, which is unusual.
Comments