Keir Starmer breaks silence on Lord Mandelson scandal (Image: Getty)
Sir Keir Starmer said “had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed” Lord Peter Mandelson as his ambassador to the US in his first comments since sacking him over links to Jeffrey Epstein.
The Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson last week but has faced questions about his judgment in appointing the peer, whose friendship with Epstein was public knowledge, in the first place.
Sir Keir gave public backing to Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday only to sack him the following day after the publication of email exchanges with Epstein.
When asked why he had been appointed, the Prime Minister told broadcasters: “Let me talk this through with you, because it’s important to appreciate what happened when. And I understand that obviously the post, the diplomatic post of American ambassador (is a) really important post.
“And Peter Mandelson, before he was appointed, went through a due diligence process. That’s the propriety and ethics team. He went through a process, and therefore I knew of his association with Epstein.
“But had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him, because what emerged last week were emails, 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 to be the position when I appointed him.
“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 for many years, and this Government’s approach.
“On top of that, what emerged last week, on Wednesday evening late, were Peter Mandelson’s responses to questions that have been put to him by Government officials. I looked at those responses, and I did not find them at all satisfying.
“And therefore, on the basis of those three things, the nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I’d understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which, as I say, goes to the heart and cuts across what this Government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquires made of him by Government officials, I took the decision to remove him.
Asked whether he had been briefed properly on the issue before his weekly showdown with Kemi Badenoch, he told broadcasters: “Maybe let me deal with that, because it was only on Wednesday, early evening, that I knew the contents of the Bloomberg emails.
“It was only very late on Wednesday when Peter Mandelson replied to the questions that have been put to him by Government officials.
“And it was on that, basically, I took my decision that he should be removed.
“What I knew before PMQs was that there had been media enquiries. I didn’t know the content of the Bloomberg emails, and I knew that questions had been put to Peter that he had not yet answered, and he hadn’t answered them by the time I got to PMQs, there is, of course, a time lag in America, but I knew that there were questions that have been put to him, but I didn’t know what answers he was going to give to those questions.
“That came later on Wednesday, and that’s why, at that point, I gave the answer I did at PMQs. And that’s the extent of what I knew at the time.”
Starmer sacks Lord Mandelson as ambassador to US
The Conservatives had written to Sir Keir asking him to explain the sequence of events leading to Lord Mandelson’s sacking and publish documents relating to his vetting and correspondence with the Downing Street operation last week.
The party has said it would use every mechanism that is available to us to force the truth to come out”, shadow education secretary Laura Trott told the BBC.
The Prime Minister is also facing disquiet among his own MPs, with one backbencher saying he is “supping in the last-chance saloon”.
Blackley and Middleton MP Graham Stringer also said “it is a given” among Labour MPs that the Prime Minister is “making mistakes and doing poorly at the job”, in comments to Times Radio.
Dulwich and West Norwood MP Helen Hayes said there will need to be “questions about the nature of the leadership” if Labour fare badly in elections in May 2026.
“We have really important elections in May… If those elections don’t go well, then that will be the time to ask questions… Questions about the nature of the leadership and whether things can continue as they are, but we’re not at that point now,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour.