KEIR Starmer has admitted he did not ask about the content of emails between Peter Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before defending the Labour peer at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Starmer backed Mandelson to the hilt just hours before emails were published showing he had questioned Epstein’s paedophilia conviction and stood by the billionaire, saying: “Your friends stay with you and love you.”
The emails were first published by The Sun, but Bloomberg later revealed that it had also acquired them and gone to the UK Government for comment on the story two days earlier, on Monday, September 8.
After the messages became public, Starmer removed Mandelson from the role of US ambassador, leading to questions about what he had known and when – as well as intense pressure from within Labour over his handling of the entire affair.
Speaking to broadcasters on Monday, the Prime Minister attempted to fight the fire started by the Mandelson saga.
Asked if he had been briefed properly before defending Mandelson, Starmer said: “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.”
Asked about Mandelson’s appointment, Starmer further said: “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.
“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 inquiries made of him by Government officials, I took the decision to remove him.”
Starmer had stood by Mandelson after a "birthday book" compiled by convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s 50th in 2003 showed him fawning over the paedophile as his “best pal”.
Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, is under pressure himself after reports said it had been on his advice that Mandelson was appointed, and then defended.
The saga has seen Labour MPs openly questioning whether Starmer can continue as Labour leader, especially if he delivers a poor set of results at the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections in 2026.
Left wing Labour MP Richard Burgon said it was “inevitable” the Prime Minister would be toppled if the elections go badly.
Dulwich and West Norwood MP Helen Hayes said there will need to be “questions about the nature of the leadership” if Labour fare badly.
Labour are consistently trailing Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in the opinion polls, with Starmer's Government's approval rating reaching record lows in recent weeks.
There has been speculation within Labour circles that Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham could be manoeuvred into a Westminster seat in order to present himself as a leadership rival.
