Labour Peer Sent Urgent Warning Against Mandelson's US Ambassador Appointment
Pressure is mounting on Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney following revelations that he received a memo warning against the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The confidential communication was sent by Lord Maurice Glasman, the influential founder of the Blue Labour movement, during his attendance at Donald Trump's inauguration in Washington DC.
Glasman's Direct Warning to Starmer's Inner Circle
Lord Glasman's memo contained a stark warning: "Withdraw Peter Mandelson. He is the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place." The peer had attended a pre-inauguration party hosted by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, where he gathered intelligence about American political sentiment toward the proposed appointment.
Multiple Labour MPs and government ministers are now calling for McSweeney's dismissal, believing he was the primary advocate for Mandelson's placement in what is considered Britain's most crucial diplomatic position. The controversy has created significant turbulence within Starmer's administration as questions about judgment and decision-making processes come to the forefront.
Farage Suggested as Alternative Candidate
In his detailed memorandum, first published by the Telegraph, Lord Glasman presented a surprising alternative: Nigel Farage. The Labour peer argued that the Reform UK leader would be more effective in the role due to his established relationship with the incoming Trump administration.
"The vast majority of people I met... consider our appointment of Peter Mandelson an unnecessary provocation," Glasman reported. He continued with a bold proposal: "The obvious person is Farage if you can find it in yourselves to be so bold. He has a close relationship with Trump, Vance with Bannon. They like him more since he fell out with Elon."
Glasman even suggested strategic benefits: "I think he would be tempted, and then Reform would be neutralised, and he would be bound to us. Offer him a knighthood." This unconventional recommendation highlights the perceived diplomatic challenges Mandelson's appointment would create with the new American administration.
Trump Administration Opposition and Epstein Connections
The incoming Trump government had expressed clear opposition to Mandelson's potential appointment, with indications they might reject his diplomatic credentials if Starmer proceeded. This resistance stemmed from concerns about Mandelson's connections to China and, more significantly, his continued association with convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Mandelson was eventually dismissed from the ambassadorial role in September last year as details emerged about his ongoing relationship with Epstein after the financier's imprisonment. At the time, McSweeney reportedly urged Sir Keir to retain Mandelson despite the growing controversy.
Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged last week that he and his team were aware Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after the financier's incarceration. Mandelson has since expressed regret for this association and offered an unequivocal apology to Epstein's victims.
Support for Existing Ambassador and Political Fallout
Lord Glasman's memo also advocated for retaining the existing ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, who was performing what he described as "a fine holding job." He noted she had "not p---ed them off, which is a great achievement in itself," referencing her positive engagement with the Trump transition team.
Sources within the Trump camp at the time confirmed to The Independent their preference for Dame Karen to continue in her role, appreciating her diplomatic approach following Trump's re-election. This preference further complicated the proposed Mandelson appointment.
The leaked memorandum provides additional evidence for Labour parliamentarians questioning the judgment of both McSweeney and Prime Minister Starmer regarding the ill-fated Mandelson appointment. As the controversy continues to unfold, it raises significant questions about diplomatic appointments, political judgment, and the handling of sensitive international relationships during government transitions.
