Starmer’s Mandelson problem isn’t process, it’s judgement
What's the administration thinking here?
Sir Keir Starmer has tried using a simple explanation for the Mandelson affair: he didn’t know.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted he was unaware of the “depth” of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him Britain’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson, he says, misled him. Officials failed him. New information has since come to light which would have stopped the appointment “had I known it at the time”.
In Parliament on 10 September 2025, Starmer was categorical. “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors,” he told MPs.
The documents released yesterday show that claim just wasn’t true.
Let’s go through it. Mandelson was a controversial appointment from the very beginning – and even if one had somehow missed his other dodgy departures from British politics, the Cabinet Office attempted to ensure the Prime Minister was properly briefed. A two-page due diligence report was placed on Starmer’s desk warning him of the “reputational risks” from Mandelson’s association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Officials noted a JPMorgan report describing the two men as “particularly close”. They recorded that Mandelson’s contact with Epstein continued after the financier had been convicted of child sex offences. They also flagged reports that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s house while he was in jail.
The Prime Minister could not miss it. Surely this was evidence enough not to go through with the appointment? And yet he did.
Starmer’s defence since Mandelson’s messy dismissal has been that the former ambassador misrepresented the relationship with Epstein. In February, the Prime Minister said the former US ambassador had “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew. And when that became clear and it was not true, I sacked him.”
But the papers released today show that officials had already outlined the essential facts before the appointment was made. The warning lights were flashing well in advance.
Not just that. Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s own National Security Adviser, described the appointment process at the time as “weirdly rushed” and “unusual”. He raised his concerns with Morgan McSweeney, then Starmer’s chief of staff. Starmer, the documents show, may have had “political conversations around this”.
Philip Barton too, then the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, had his “reservations about the appointment”. Both were overruled.
What followed was hardly a forensic examination of the candidate from the former director of public prosecutions.
In response to the due diligence document raising reputational concerns, Mandelson was asked just three questions by McSweeney. He answered them. His responses were accepted at face value.
There is, throughout …
What's the administration thinking here?
Sir Keir Starmer has tried using a simple explanation for the Mandelson affair: he didn’t know.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted he was unaware of the “depth” of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him Britain’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson, he says, misled him. Officials failed him. New information has since come to light which would have stopped the appointment “had I known it at the time”.
In Parliament on 10 September 2025, Starmer was categorical. “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors,” he told MPs.
The documents released yesterday show that claim just wasn’t true.
Let’s go through it. Mandelson was a controversial appointment from the very beginning – and even if one had somehow missed his other dodgy departures from British politics, the Cabinet Office attempted to ensure the Prime Minister was properly briefed. A two-page due diligence report was placed on Starmer’s desk warning him of the “reputational risks” from Mandelson’s association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Officials noted a JPMorgan report describing the two men as “particularly close”. They recorded that Mandelson’s contact with Epstein continued after the financier had been convicted of child sex offences. They also flagged reports that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s house while he was in jail.
The Prime Minister could not miss it. Surely this was evidence enough not to go through with the appointment? And yet he did.
Starmer’s defence since Mandelson’s messy dismissal has been that the former ambassador misrepresented the relationship with Epstein. In February, the Prime Minister said the former US ambassador had “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew. And when that became clear and it was not true, I sacked him.”
But the papers released today show that officials had already outlined the essential facts before the appointment was made. The warning lights were flashing well in advance.
Not just that. Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s own National Security Adviser, described the appointment process at the time as “weirdly rushed” and “unusual”. He raised his concerns with Morgan McSweeney, then Starmer’s chief of staff. Starmer, the documents show, may have had “political conversations around this”.
Philip Barton too, then the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, had his “reservations about the appointment”. Both were overruled.
What followed was hardly a forensic examination of the candidate from the former director of public prosecutions.
In response to the due diligence document raising reputational concerns, Mandelson was asked just three questions by McSweeney. He answered them. His responses were accepted at face value.
There is, throughout …
Starmer’s Mandelson problem isn’t process, it’s judgement
What's the administration thinking here?
Sir Keir Starmer has tried using a simple explanation for the Mandelson affair: he didn’t know.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted he was unaware of the “depth” of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him Britain’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson, he says, misled him. Officials failed him. New information has since come to light which would have stopped the appointment “had I known it at the time”.
In Parliament on 10 September 2025, Starmer was categorical. “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors,” he told MPs.
The documents released yesterday show that claim just wasn’t true.
Let’s go through it. Mandelson was a controversial appointment from the very beginning – and even if one had somehow missed his other dodgy departures from British politics, the Cabinet Office attempted to ensure the Prime Minister was properly briefed. A two-page due diligence report was placed on Starmer’s desk warning him of the “reputational risks” from Mandelson’s association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Officials noted a JPMorgan report describing the two men as “particularly close”. They recorded that Mandelson’s contact with Epstein continued after the financier had been convicted of child sex offences. They also flagged reports that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s house while he was in jail.
The Prime Minister could not miss it. Surely this was evidence enough not to go through with the appointment? And yet he did.
Starmer’s defence since Mandelson’s messy dismissal has been that the former ambassador misrepresented the relationship with Epstein. In February, the Prime Minister said the former US ambassador had “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew. And when that became clear and it was not true, I sacked him.”
But the papers released today show that officials had already outlined the essential facts before the appointment was made. The warning lights were flashing well in advance.
Not just that. Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s own National Security Adviser, described the appointment process at the time as “weirdly rushed” and “unusual”. He raised his concerns with Morgan McSweeney, then Starmer’s chief of staff. Starmer, the documents show, may have had “political conversations around this”.
Philip Barton too, then the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, had his “reservations about the appointment”. Both were overruled.
What followed was hardly a forensic examination of the candidate from the former director of public prosecutions.
In response to the due diligence document raising reputational concerns, Mandelson was asked just three questions by McSweeney. He answered them. His responses were accepted at face value.
There is, throughout …
0 Comments
0 Shares
39 Views
0 Reviews
