Sir Keir Starmer deflected intense scrutiny over whether he personally confronted Peter Mandelson about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. Despite repeated demands for clarity from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch during Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer refused to confirm any direct conversation, choosing instead to apologize for the controversial appointment and shift focus onto Badenoch’s stance on Iran.
Revelations Expose ‘Reputational Risk’ Warnings
Last week’s release of internal government documents unveiled that the Prime Minister was explicitly warned about the “reputational risk” posed by Lord Mandelson’s association with Epstein. These files, spanning 147 pages, emerged after a parliamentary vote demanded transparency over Mandelson’s appointment process.
The documents reference a 2019 JP Morgan report highlighting Epstein’s unusually close relationship with Mandelson. Remarkably, the files also note that Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s residence in June 2009, while Epstein was incarcerated.
Lord Mandelson was dismissed as ambassador in September following the surfacing of new information about his Epstein connections. The Prime Minister has since stated he was unaware of the full extent and depth of their relationship when making the appointment.
Further disclosures from the US Epstein files earlier this year triggered a leadership crisis for Starmer, culminating in the resignation of his key aide, Morgan McSweeney.
Mandelson’s Defense and the PM’s Handling
Mandelson insists he never lied to the Prime Minister, recalls no face-to-face questioning about Epstein during vetting, and asserts he answered written inquiries truthfully after Epstein’s conviction.
According to reports, Starmer did not directly speak to Mandelson before appointing him. Instead, he delegated the vetting questions to his chief of staff, McSweeney.
Badenoch’s Relentless Pressure at PMQs
During Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions—the first since the Mandelson files were published—Badenoch pressed Starmer repeatedly:
“Did the Prime Minister personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?”
Starmer’s response acknowledged the appointment as a “mistake,” apologized to Epstein’s victims, and emphasized that the appointment process had been reviewed and strengthened following independent advice. He then deflected by criticizing Badenoch’s call for UK involvement in a war with Iran.
Badenoch countered sharply, highlighting Starmer’s contradictory position on whether Mandelson lied to him yet refusing to confirm if any direct conversation occurred. She questioned, “If the Prime Minister didn’t speak to him, how can he say he lied to him?”
Starmer Shifts Focus Amidst Ethical Debate
Starmer reiterated his belief that the vetting process was scrutinized by ethics advisers and pivoted to condemn Conservative shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy for inflammatory remarks about Muslims praying in public spaces, calling for Timothy’s dismissal.
Badenoch defended Timothy as defending British values and accused Starmer of evading the core question about Mandelson’s appointment.
Downing Street’s Official Stance
A No 10 spokesperson stated that the established appointment process was followed and clarified that a formal interview with the Prime Minister was not required.
