Starmer Confronts Labour Rebellion Over Mandelson-Epstein Scandal
Sir Keir Starmer is facing significant unrest within Labour ranks following revelations about Lord Peter Mandelson's connections with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister has been forced into a dramatic climbdown over the release of sensitive documents related to the controversial appointment.
Knowledge of Epstein Links Before Appointment
During Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir admitted he was aware of Lord Mandelson's ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein when appointing him as UK ambassador to the United States in 2024. However, the Labour leader claimed the peer "lied repeatedly" about the true extent and depth of their relationship.
A Number 10 source later revealed that Lord Mandelson had presented Epstein as "someone he barely knew" during the appointment process, despite security vetting having examined connections that continued after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor.
Parliamentary Pressure Forces Document Release U-turn
Under intense pressure from Labour MPs led by former deputy leader Angela Rayner, Sir Keir abandoned his original position that top civil servant Sir Chris Wormald should decide which documents could be withheld on national security grounds. Instead, he accepted that Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) would make this crucial determination.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who has spearheaded the parliamentary push for transparency, repeatedly questioned Sir Keir about his knowledge of the Mandelson-Epstein relationship during the appointment process. The Conservative Party subsequently tabled a humble address motion to compel the Government to release all relevant documents.
Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations and Political Fallout
Frantic negotiations took place in the Commons to reach a compromise and avoid a full-scale Labour revolt. Ms Rayner argued that involving the ISC would help maintain "public confidence" in the process, reflecting growing concern among backbench Labour MPs.
A Conservative spokesman declared: "You could feel in the Commons that was the moment Labour MPs stopped backing the Prime Minister. The Government have now had to cave to Kemi's demand for all documents to go to the ISC. Starmer is no longer in control."
Revelations from Epstein Files and Mandelson's Response
Documents released as part of the US Department of Justice's Epstein Files appear to show Lord Mandelson passing potentially market-sensitive information to his friend in 2009 while serving as business secretary in Gordon Brown's government.
While Lord Mandelson has not spoken publicly, the BBC reported that he maintains he did not act criminally and that his actions were not for personal gain. According to the broadcaster, Lord Mandelson argues he sought Epstein's expertise in the national interest before the financial crisis.
Starmer's Strong Condemnation and Consequences
Sir Keir delivered a powerful condemnation of his former appointee, stating: "Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador."
The Prime Minister expressed regret over the appointment, adding: "If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government." Lord Mandelson was sacked from his Washington role in September last year following renewed scrutiny of his Epstein links.
Ongoing Repercussions and Title Removal
Lord Mandelson has quit the House of Lords, but Sir Keir revealed that legislation is being drafted to prevent him from continuing to use his title. Furthermore, the Prime Minister confirmed he had agreed with the King that Lord Mandelson should no longer be a privy counsellor, stating he had "brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute." This removes his right to be described as "right honourable."
The scandal represents one of Sir Keir Starmer's most significant political challenges since becoming Prime Minister, exposing divisions within his party and raising questions about judgment in high-level appointments.
