Peter Mandelson is no longer US ambassador to the UK, but tough questions remain for Keir Starmer about why he appointed the ‘Prince of Darkness’ in the first place. Downing Street distanced itself from Mandelson last week, with the Prime Minister’s spokesperson claiming that new information had emerged about Mandelson’s relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein that put things in a different light. Mandelson was sacked just days after Starmer had defended his man in Washington amid criticism from his backbenchers. Now news has come out that the House of Commons will debate Mandelson’s appointment tomorrow. The backlash continues…
The Conservatives have been granted an emergency debate in the Commons on Mandelson which will focus on what exactly Starmer knew and when – looking at both the appointment process and the ambassador’s dismissal from his role last week. The announcement of the debate came just hours after Starmer admitted on camera that ‘had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’. The Prime Minister told Sky News that the emails unearthed by Bloomberg last week, which showed Mandelson’s intention to help Epstein challenge his conviction, ‘cut across the whole approach that I’ve taken on violence against women and girls for many years’. He added that on viewing Mandelson’s responses to questioning from government officials on Wednesday evening, ‘I did not find them at all satisfying’.
But Starmer’s explanations have only prompted more questions. There are concerns about his timeline of events, and specifically why the Prime Minister issued a vote of confidence in Mandelson during last Wednesday’s PMQs session. Starmer’s excuse is that he had not, at that point, seen the full extent of the information about Mandelson’s links with Epstein. While he had been aware media enquiries had been made regarding the emails, he claims he hadn’t seen the contents of the emails and was instead waiting for the British ambassador to respond to them first. But it seems rather odd that the PM wouldn’t have asked to be briefed on the exchanges ahead of PMQs – or that officials wouldn’t have urged that he be made aware of them.
The use of Standing Order 24 by Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives to secure an emergency debate will guarantee that the Mandelson matter remains in the spotlight. Tomorrow’s three-hour back-and-forth is guaranteed to make it substantially harder for Labour to dodge scrutiny.
Comments