KEIR Starmer has finally broken his silence on the scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after he sacked him as US ambassador.
The Prime Minister has said that “had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him”.
The scandal is so serious that MPs are now openly discussing whether Starmer is up for the job, despite his massive majority, and some are said to be plotting his downfall.
In an interview on Monday, Starmer sought to put forward his side of the story. But we reckon he still has questions to answer.
MPs will debate Mandelson's appointment and dismissal for three hours before Westminster goes into recess on Tuesday. Here's what we think must be asked:
1. Why did Starmer back Mandelson at PMQs?
This is the key point, at least in the eyes of the Westminster commentariat.
Starmer has now admitted that he knew that the press had made enquiries before PMQs on Wednesday about Mandelson’s appointment, and were about to reveal more details of his friendship with Epstein.
Starmer said that before PMQs last week he knew of enquiries but not exactly what they were about.
Surely press enquiries about someone in such a sensitive position, and with Mandelson’s record of scandal, this should’ve set alarm bells ringing in No 10; that it didn’t shows a basic failure of inquisitiveness and a fundamental lack of political nous.
2. Why did McSweeney back Mandelson so strongly?
The key figure in all of this is Morgan McSweeney (below), Starmer’s top aide. He is the Prime Minister’s most senior advisor and is widely reported as being Mandelson’s staunchest ally in Downing Street. He is reportedly the man who pushed for his appointment in the first place.
But this raises questions: Why is he such a big fan of the man the papers once dubbed the “prince of darkness”?
Could it be that, having worked for Mandelson during the Blair government, he still feels loyalty to his one-time mentor? Should that trump the mountain of concerns that would have accompanied Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador?
3. Was there any special scrutiny of Mandelson’s appointment?
Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador despite his friendship with Epstein being public knowledge.
The full details had not yet emerged but it was on the record the pair were friends and it was known that Mandelson had even stayed at his house after Epstein had been convicted on child sex charges.
4. Why was Mandelson described as having ‘singular talents’?
The UK Government appeared not to have fully fleshed out its position on Mandelson by the time the Sunday politics shows rolled around.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle (above) defended his appointment while appearing on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, saying that Mandelson’s “outstanding, singular talents” were weighed against his relationship with Epstein and it was judged that the former outweighed the latter.
Did the Government really think that line would hold?
5. Why was Mandelson appointed in the first place?
Underpinning all this is the original sin of appointing Mandelson in the first place.
How could it be that the Government saw his track record – he had twice been forced to resign from the Government in disgrace – and thought it was a risk worth taking?
Many argued at the time that what was needed was a professional diplomat, as is standard, to be appointed to the role. But Starmer chose someone with the political baggage of Mandelson.
It raises further questions about the rigorousness of the Government’s vetting procedures, given that journalists and US politicians were able to uncover what the UK security services were not.
6. Why has parliamentary scrutiny stymied?
Mandelson’s appointment was controversial from the beginning, as Foreign Affairs Committee chair Emily Thornberry (below) reminded us last week. She said: “Since the first rumours of his appointment, my committee has repeatedly asked – publicly and privately – to question Peter Mandelson.”
The Foreign Office, she claimed, “stopped us from asking questions”.
Why did Whitehall protect Mandelson and why, now that a debate has been granted on Tuesday on the former ambassador's appointment, weren’t MPs given the chance to scrutinise sooner?
7. Will Mandelson keep his peerage?
He may be returning from Washington DC but Mandelson will still have a place to hang his hat, and his ermine robes, in Westminster on his return to the UK.
He remains a member of the House of Lords, a job for life on which he’s been able to rely for access to the corridors of power (and a comfy daily attendance allowance) since he was ennobled in 2008.
